Reviews

Nutritional deficiencies are one of the many causes of or contributors to symptoms in patients with psychiatric disorders. In this article, we discuss the prevalence of iron deficiency and its link to poor mental health, and how proper treatment may improve psychiatric symptoms. We also offer suggestions for how and when to test for and treat iron deficiency in psychiatric patients.

A common condition

Iron deficiency is the most common mineral deficiency in the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 25% of the global population is anemic and nearly one-half of those cases are the result of iron deficiency.¹ While the WHO has published guidelines defining iron deficiency as it relates to ferritin levels (<15 ug/L in adults and <12 ug/L in children), this estimate might be low.^2,3 Mei et al² found that hemoglobin and soluble transferrin receptors can be used to determine iron-deficient erythropoiesis, which indicates a physiological definition of iron deficiency. According to a study of children and nonpregnant women by Mei et al,² children with ferritin levels <20 ug/L and women with ferritin levels <25 ug/L should be considered iron-deficient. If replicated, this study suggests the prevalence of iron deficiency is higher than currently estimated.² Overall, an estimated 1.2 billion people worldwide have iron-deficiency anemia.⁴ Additionally, patients can be iron deficient without being anemic, a condition thought to be at least twice as common.⁴

Essential for brain function

Research shows the importance of iron to proper brain function.⁵ Iron deficiency in pregnant women is associated with significant neuropsychological impairments in neonates. Rodent studies have demonstrated the importance of iron and the effects of iron deficiency on the hippocampus, corpus striatum, and production of monoamines.⁵ Specifically, iron is a necessary cofactor in the enzymes tryptophan hydroxylase and tyrosine hydroxylase, which produce serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. In rodent studies, monoamine deficits secondary to iron deficiency persist into adulthood even with iron supplementation, which highlights the importance of preventing iron deficiency during pregnancy and early life.⁵ While most research has focused on the impact of iron deficiency in infancy and early childhood, iron deficiency has an ongoing impact into adulthood, even if treated.⁶

Iron deficiency and psychiatric symptoms

Current research suggests an association between iron deficiency or low ferritin levels and psychiatric disorders, specifically depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. In a web survey of 11,876 adults, Hidese et al⁷ found an association between a self-reported history of iron deficiency anemia and a self-reported history of depression. Another study of 528 municipal employees found an association between low serum ferritin concentrations and a high prevalence of depressive symptoms among men; no statistically significant association was detected in women.⁸ In an analysis of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database from 2000 to 2012, Lee et al⁹ found a statistically significant increased risk of anxiety disorders, depression, sleep disorders, and psychotic disorders in patients with iron deficiency anemia after controlling for multiple confounders. Xu et al¹⁰ used quantitative susceptibility mapping to assess the iron status in certain regions of the brain of 30 patients with first-episode psychosis. They found lower levels of iron in the bilateral substantia nigra, left red nucleus, and left thalamus compared to healthy controls.¹⁰ Kim et al¹¹ found an association between iron deficiency and more severe negative symptoms in 121 patients with first-episode psychosis, which supports the hypothesis that iron deficiency may alter dopamine transmission in the brain.

Iron deficiency has been associated with psychopathology across the lifespan. In a population-based study in Taiwan, Chen et al¹² found an association between iron deficiency anemia and psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, including mood disorders, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and developmental disorders. At the other end of the age spectrum, in a survey of 1,875 older adults in England, Stewart et al¹³ found an association between low ferritin levels (<45 ng/mL) and depressive symptoms after adjusting for demographic factors and overall health status.

In addition to specific psychiatric disorders and symptoms, iron deficiency is often associated with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue.¹⁴ Fatigue is a symptom of numerous psychiatric disorders and is included in the DSM diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.¹⁵

Iron supplementation might improve psychiatric symptoms

Some evidence suggests that using iron supplementation to treat iron deficiency can improve psychiatric symptoms. In a 2013 systematic literature review of 10 studies, Greig et al¹⁶ found a link between low iron status and poor cognition, poor mental health scores, and fatigue among women of childbearing age. In this review, 7 studies demonstrated improvement in cognition and 3 demonstrated improvement in mental health with iron supplementation.¹⁶ In a 2021 prospective study, 19 children and adolescents age 6 to 15 who had serum ferritin levels <30 ng/mL were treated with oral iron supplementation for 12 weeks.¹⁷ Participants showed significant improvements in sleep quality, depressive symptoms, and general mood as assessed via the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaires, respectively.¹⁷ A randomized controlled trial of 219 female soldiers who were given iron supplementation or placebo for 8 weeks during basic combat training found that compared to placebo, iron supplementation led to improvements in mood as measured by the POMS questionnaire.¹⁸ Lastly, in a 2016 observational study of 412 adult psychiatric patients, Kassir¹⁹ found most patients (81%) had iron deficiency, defined as a transferrin saturation coefficient <30% or serum ferritin <100 ng/mL. Although these cutoffs are not considered standard and thus may have overrepresented the percentage of patients considered iron-deficient, more than one-half of patients considered iron-deficient in this study experienced a reduction or elimination of psychiatric symptoms following treatment with iron supplementation and/or psychotropic medications.¹⁹

Continue to: Individuals with iron deficiency...

Individuals with iron deficiency without anemia also may see improvement in psychiatric symptoms with iron treatment. In a 2018 systematic review, Houston et al²⁰ evaluated iron supplementation in 1,170 adults who were iron-deficient but not anemic. They found that in these patients, fatigue significantly improved but physical capacity did not.²⁰ Additionally, 2 other studies found iron treatment improved fatigue in nonanemic women.^21,22 In a 2016 systematic review, Pratt et al²³ concluded, “There is emerging evidence that … nonanemic iron deficiency … is a disease in its own right, deserving of further research in the development of strategies for detection and treatment.” Al-Naseem et al²⁴ suggested severity distinguishes iron deficiency with and without anemia.

Your role in assessing and treating iron deficiency

Testing for and treating iron deficiency generally is not a part of routine psychiatric practice. This might be due to apathy given the pervasiveness of iron deficiency, a belief that iron deficiency should be managed by primary care physicians, or a lack of familiarity with how to treat it and the benefits of such treatment for psychiatric patients. However, assessing for and treating iron deficiency in psychiatric patients is important, especially for individuals who are highly susceptible to inadequate iron levels. People at risk for iron deficiency include pregnant women, infants, young children, women with heavy menstrual bleeding, frequent blood donors, patients with cancer, individuals who have gastrointestinal (GI) surgeries or disorders, and those with heart failure.²⁵

Assessment. Iron status can be assessed through an iron studies panel. Because a patient can have iron deficiency without anemia, a complete blood count (CBC) alone does not suffice.²⁶ The iron panel includes serum iron, serum ferritin, serum transferrin or total iron-binding capacity (TIBC), and calculated transferrin saturation (TSAT), which is the ratio of serum iron to TIBC.

Iron deficiency is diagnosed if ferritin is <30 ng/mL, regardless of the hemoglobin concentration or underlying condition, and confirmed by a low TSAT.²⁶ In most guidelines, the cutoff value for TSAT for iron deficiency is <20%. Because the TSAT can be influenced by iron supplements or iron-rich foods, wait several hours to obtain blood after a patient takes an oral iron supplement or eats iron-rich foods. If desired, clinicians can use either ferritin or TSAT alone to diagnose iron deficiency. However, because ferritin can be falsely normal in inflammatory conditions such as obesity and infection, a TSAT may be needed to confirm iron deficiency if there is a high clinical suspicion despite a normal ferritin level.²⁶

Treatment. If iron deficiency is confirmed, instruct your patient to follow up with their primary care physician or the appropriate specialist to evaluate for any underlying etiologies.

Continue to: Iron deficiency should be treated...

Iron deficiency should be treated with supplementation because diet alone is insufficient for replenishing iron stores. Iron replacement can be oral or IV. Oral replacement is effective, safe, inexpensive, easy to obtain, and easy to administer.²⁷ Oral replacement is recommended for adults whose anemia is not severe or who do not have a comorbid condition such as pregnancy, inflammatory bowel conditions, gastric surgery, or chronic kidney disease. When anemia is severe or a patient has one of these comorbid conditions, IV is the preferred method of replacement.²⁷ In these cases, defer treatment to the patient’s primary care physician or specialist. 

There are no clear recommendations on the amount of iron per dose to prescribe.²⁷ The maximum amount of oral iron that can be absorbed is approximately 25 mg/d of elemental iron. A 325 mg ferrous sulfate tablet contains 65 mg of elemental iron, of which approximately 25 mg is absorbed and utilized.²⁷

Emerging evidence suggests that excessive iron dosing may reduce iron absorption and increase adverse effects. In a study of 54 nonanemic young women with iron deficiency who were given iron supplementation, Moretti et al²⁸ found that a large oral dose of iron taken in the morning increased hepcidin, which decreased the absorption of iron taken later for up to 48 hours. They found that 40 to 80 mg of elemental iron given on alternate days may maximize the fractional iron absorbed, increase dosage efficacy, reduce GI exposure to unabsorbed iron, and improve patients’ ability to tolerate iron supplementation.²⁸

Adverse effects from iron supplements occur in up to 70% of patients.²⁷ These can include metallic taste, nausea, vomiting, flatulence, diarrhea, epigastric pain, constipation, and dark stools.²⁷ Using a liquid form may help reduce adverse effects because it can be more easily titrated.²⁷ Tell patients to avoid enteric-coated or sustained-release iron capsules because these are poorly absorbed. Be cautious when prescribing iron supplementation to older adults because these patients tend to have more adverse effects, especially constipation, as well as reduced absorption, and may ultimately need IV treatment. Iron should not be taken with food, calcium supplements, antacids, coffee, tea, or milk.²⁷

The amount of iron present, cost, and adverse effects vary by supplement. The Table^27,29-33 provides more information on available forms of iron. Many forms of iron supplementation are available over-the-counter, and most are equally effective.²⁷ Advise patients to use iron products that have been tested by an independent company, such as ConsumerLab.com. Such companies evaluate products to see if they contain the amount of iron listed on the product’s label; for contamination with lead, cadmium, or arsenic; and for the product’s ability to break apart for absorption.³⁴

Six to 8 weeks of treatment with oral iron supplementation may be necessary before anemia is fully resolved, and it may take up to 6 months for iron stores to be repleted.²⁷ If a patient cannot tolerate an iron supplement, reducing the dose or taking it with meals may help prevent adverse effects, but also will reduce absorption. Auerbach²⁷ recommends assessing tolerability and rechecking the patient’s CBC 2 weeks after starting oral iron replacement, while also checking hemoglobin and the reticulocyte count to see if the patient is responding to treatment. An analysis of 5 studies found that a hemoglobin measurement on Day 14 that shows an increase ≥1.0 g/dL from baseline predicts longer-term and sustained treatment response to continued oral therapy.³⁵ There is no clear consensus for target ferritin levels, but we suggest aiming for a ferritin level >100 ug/L based on recommendations for the treatment of restless legs syndrome.³⁶ We recommend ongoing monitoring every 4 to 6 weeks.

Bottom Line

Iron deficiency is common and can cause or contribute to psychiatric symptoms and disorders. Consider screening patients for iron deficiency and treating it with oral supplementation in individuals without any comorbidities, or referring them to their primary care physician or specialist.

Related Resources

• Berthou C, Iliou JP, Barba D. Iron, neuro-bioavailability and depression. EJHaem. 2021;3(1):263-275.

Nutritional deficiencies are one of the many causes of or contributors to symptoms in patients with psychiatric disorders. In this article, we discuss the prevalence of iron deficiency and its link to poor mental health, and how proper treatment may improve psychiatric symptoms. We also offer suggestions for how and when to test for and treat iron deficiency in psychiatric patients.

A common condition

Iron deficiency is the most common mineral deficiency in the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 25% of the global population is anemic and nearly one-half of those cases are the result of iron deficiency.¹ While the WHO has published guidelines defining iron deficiency as it relates to ferritin levels (<15 ug/L in adults and <12 ug/L in children), this estimate might be low.^2,3 Mei et al² found that hemoglobin and soluble transferrin receptors can be used to determine iron-deficient erythropoiesis, which indicates a physiological definition of iron deficiency. According to a study of children and nonpregnant women by Mei et al,² children with ferritin levels <20 ug/L and women with ferritin levels <25 ug/L should be considered iron-deficient. If replicated, this study suggests the prevalence of iron deficiency is higher than currently estimated.² Overall, an estimated 1.2 billion people worldwide have iron-deficiency anemia.⁴ Additionally, patients can be iron deficient without being anemic, a condition thought to be at least twice as common.⁴

Essential for brain function

Research shows the importance of iron to proper brain function.⁵ Iron deficiency in pregnant women is associated with significant neuropsychological impairments in neonates. Rodent studies have demonstrated the importance of iron and the effects of iron deficiency on the hippocampus, corpus striatum, and production of monoamines.⁵ Specifically, iron is a necessary cofactor in the enzymes tryptophan hydroxylase and tyrosine hydroxylase, which produce serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. In rodent studies, monoamine deficits secondary to iron deficiency persist into adulthood even with iron supplementation, which highlights the importance of preventing iron deficiency during pregnancy and early life.⁵ While most research has focused on the impact of iron deficiency in infancy and early childhood, iron deficiency has an ongoing impact into adulthood, even if treated.⁶

Iron deficiency and psychiatric symptoms

Current research suggests an association between iron deficiency or low ferritin levels and psychiatric disorders, specifically depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. In a web survey of 11,876 adults, Hidese et al⁷ found an association between a self-reported history of iron deficiency anemia and a self-reported history of depression. Another study of 528 municipal employees found an association between low serum ferritin concentrations and a high prevalence of depressive symptoms among men; no statistically significant association was detected in women.⁸ In an analysis of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database from 2000 to 2012, Lee et al⁹ found a statistically significant increased risk of anxiety disorders, depression, sleep disorders, and psychotic disorders in patients with iron deficiency anemia after controlling for multiple confounders. Xu et al¹⁰ used quantitative susceptibility mapping to assess the iron status in certain regions of the brain of 30 patients with first-episode psychosis. They found lower levels of iron in the bilateral substantia nigra, left red nucleus, and left thalamus compared to healthy controls.¹⁰ Kim et al¹¹ found an association between iron deficiency and more severe negative symptoms in 121 patients with first-episode psychosis, which supports the hypothesis that iron deficiency may alter dopamine transmission in the brain.

Iron deficiency has been associated with psychopathology across the lifespan. In a population-based study in Taiwan, Chen et al¹² found an association between iron deficiency anemia and psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, including mood disorders, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and developmental disorders. At the other end of the age spectrum, in a survey of 1,875 older adults in England, Stewart et al¹³ found an association between low ferritin levels (<45 ng/mL) and depressive symptoms after adjusting for demographic factors and overall health status.

In addition to specific psychiatric disorders and symptoms, iron deficiency is often associated with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue.¹⁴ Fatigue is a symptom of numerous psychiatric disorders and is included in the DSM diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.¹⁵

Iron supplementation might improve psychiatric symptoms

Some evidence suggests that using iron supplementation to treat iron deficiency can improve psychiatric symptoms. In a 2013 systematic literature review of 10 studies, Greig et al¹⁶ found a link between low iron status and poor cognition, poor mental health scores, and fatigue among women of childbearing age. In this review, 7 studies demonstrated improvement in cognition and 3 demonstrated improvement in mental health with iron supplementation.¹⁶ In a 2021 prospective study, 19 children and adolescents age 6 to 15 who had serum ferritin levels <30 ng/mL were treated with oral iron supplementation for 12 weeks.¹⁷ Participants showed significant improvements in sleep quality, depressive symptoms, and general mood as assessed via the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaires, respectively.¹⁷ A randomized controlled trial of 219 female soldiers who were given iron supplementation or placebo for 8 weeks during basic combat training found that compared to placebo, iron supplementation led to improvements in mood as measured by the POMS questionnaire.¹⁸ Lastly, in a 2016 observational study of 412 adult psychiatric patients, Kassir¹⁹ found most patients (81%) had iron deficiency, defined as a transferrin saturation coefficient <30% or serum ferritin <100 ng/mL. Although these cutoffs are not considered standard and thus may have overrepresented the percentage of patients considered iron-deficient, more than one-half of patients considered iron-deficient in this study experienced a reduction or elimination of psychiatric symptoms following treatment with iron supplementation and/or psychotropic medications.¹⁹

Continue to: Individuals with iron deficiency...

Individuals with iron deficiency without anemia also may see improvement in psychiatric symptoms with iron treatment. In a 2018 systematic review, Houston et al²⁰ evaluated iron supplementation in 1,170 adults who were iron-deficient but not anemic. They found that in these patients, fatigue significantly improved but physical capacity did not.²⁰ Additionally, 2 other studies found iron treatment improved fatigue in nonanemic women.^21,22 In a 2016 systematic review, Pratt et al²³ concluded, “There is emerging evidence that … nonanemic iron deficiency … is a disease in its own right, deserving of further research in the development of strategies for detection and treatment.” Al-Naseem et al²⁴ suggested severity distinguishes iron deficiency with and without anemia.

Your role in assessing and treating iron deficiency

Testing for and treating iron deficiency generally is not a part of routine psychiatric practice. This might be due to apathy given the pervasiveness of iron deficiency, a belief that iron deficiency should be managed by primary care physicians, or a lack of familiarity with how to treat it and the benefits of such treatment for psychiatric patients. However, assessing for and treating iron deficiency in psychiatric patients is important, especially for individuals who are highly susceptible to inadequate iron levels. People at risk for iron deficiency include pregnant women, infants, young children, women with heavy menstrual bleeding, frequent blood donors, patients with cancer, individuals who have gastrointestinal (GI) surgeries or disorders, and those with heart failure.²⁵

Assessment. Iron status can be assessed through an iron studies panel. Because a patient can have iron deficiency without anemia, a complete blood count (CBC) alone does not suffice.²⁶ The iron panel includes serum iron, serum ferritin, serum transferrin or total iron-binding capacity (TIBC), and calculated transferrin saturation (TSAT), which is the ratio of serum iron to TIBC.

Iron deficiency is diagnosed if ferritin is <30 ng/mL, regardless of the hemoglobin concentration or underlying condition, and confirmed by a low TSAT.²⁶ In most guidelines, the cutoff value for TSAT for iron deficiency is <20%. Because the TSAT can be influenced by iron supplements or iron-rich foods, wait several hours to obtain blood after a patient takes an oral iron supplement or eats iron-rich foods. If desired, clinicians can use either ferritin or TSAT alone to diagnose iron deficiency. However, because ferritin can be falsely normal in inflammatory conditions such as obesity and infection, a TSAT may be needed to confirm iron deficiency if there is a high clinical suspicion despite a normal ferritin level.²⁶

Treatment. If iron deficiency is confirmed, instruct your patient to follow up with their primary care physician or the appropriate specialist to evaluate for any underlying etiologies.

Continue to: Iron deficiency should be treated...

Iron deficiency should be treated with supplementation because diet alone is insufficient for replenishing iron stores. Iron replacement can be oral or IV. Oral replacement is effective, safe, inexpensive, easy to obtain, and easy to administer.²⁷ Oral replacement is recommended for adults whose anemia is not severe or who do not have a comorbid condition such as pregnancy, inflammatory bowel conditions, gastric surgery, or chronic kidney disease. When anemia is severe or a patient has one of these comorbid conditions, IV is the preferred method of replacement.²⁷ In these cases, defer treatment to the patient’s primary care physician or specialist. 

There are no clear recommendations on the amount of iron per dose to prescribe.²⁷ The maximum amount of oral iron that can be absorbed is approximately 25 mg/d of elemental iron. A 325 mg ferrous sulfate tablet contains 65 mg of elemental iron, of which approximately 25 mg is absorbed and utilized.²⁷

Emerging evidence suggests that excessive iron dosing may reduce iron absorption and increase adverse effects. In a study of 54 nonanemic young women with iron deficiency who were given iron supplementation, Moretti et al²⁸ found that a large oral dose of iron taken in the morning increased hepcidin, which decreased the absorption of iron taken later for up to 48 hours. They found that 40 to 80 mg of elemental iron given on alternate days may maximize the fractional iron absorbed, increase dosage efficacy, reduce GI exposure to unabsorbed iron, and improve patients’ ability to tolerate iron supplementation.²⁸

Adverse effects from iron supplements occur in up to 70% of patients.²⁷ These can include metallic taste, nausea, vomiting, flatulence, diarrhea, epigastric pain, constipation, and dark stools.²⁷ Using a liquid form may help reduce adverse effects because it can be more easily titrated.²⁷ Tell patients to avoid enteric-coated or sustained-release iron capsules because these are poorly absorbed. Be cautious when prescribing iron supplementation to older adults because these patients tend to have more adverse effects, especially constipation, as well as reduced absorption, and may ultimately need IV treatment. Iron should not be taken with food, calcium supplements, antacids, coffee, tea, or milk.²⁷

The amount of iron present, cost, and adverse effects vary by supplement. The Table^27,29-33 provides more information on available forms of iron. Many forms of iron supplementation are available over-the-counter, and most are equally effective.²⁷ Advise patients to use iron products that have been tested by an independent company, such as ConsumerLab.com. Such companies evaluate products to see if they contain the amount of iron listed on the product’s label; for contamination with lead, cadmium, or arsenic; and for the product’s ability to break apart for absorption.³⁴

Six to 8 weeks of treatment with oral iron supplementation may be necessary before anemia is fully resolved, and it may take up to 6 months for iron stores to be repleted.²⁷ If a patient cannot tolerate an iron supplement, reducing the dose or taking it with meals may help prevent adverse effects, but also will reduce absorption. Auerbach²⁷ recommends assessing tolerability and rechecking the patient’s CBC 2 weeks after starting oral iron replacement, while also checking hemoglobin and the reticulocyte count to see if the patient is responding to treatment. An analysis of 5 studies found that a hemoglobin measurement on Day 14 that shows an increase ≥1.0 g/dL from baseline predicts longer-term and sustained treatment response to continued oral therapy.³⁵ There is no clear consensus for target ferritin levels, but we suggest aiming for a ferritin level >100 ug/L based on recommendations for the treatment of restless legs syndrome.³⁶ We recommend ongoing monitoring every 4 to 6 weeks.

Bottom Line

Iron deficiency is common and can cause or contribute to psychiatric symptoms and disorders. Consider screening patients for iron deficiency and treating it with oral supplementation in individuals without any comorbidities, or referring them to their primary care physician or specialist.

Related Resources

• Berthou C, Iliou JP, Barba D. Iron, neuro-bioavailability and depression. EJHaem. 2021;3(1):263-275.

Nutritional deficiencies are one of the many causes of or contributors to symptoms in patients with psychiatric disorders. In this article, we discuss the prevalence of iron deficiency and its link to poor mental health, and how proper treatment may improve psychiatric symptoms. We also offer suggestions for how and when to test for and treat iron deficiency in psychiatric patients.

A common condition

Iron deficiency is the most common mineral deficiency in the world. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 25% of the global population is anemic and nearly one-half of those cases are the result of iron deficiency.¹ While the WHO has published guidelines defining iron deficiency as it relates to ferritin levels (<15 ug/L in adults and <12 ug/L in children), this estimate might be low.^2,3 Mei et al² found that hemoglobin and soluble transferrin receptors can be used to determine iron-deficient erythropoiesis, which indicates a physiological definition of iron deficiency. According to a study of children and nonpregnant women by Mei et al,² children with ferritin levels <20 ug/L and women with ferritin levels <25 ug/L should be considered iron-deficient. If replicated, this study suggests the prevalence of iron deficiency is higher than currently estimated.² Overall, an estimated 1.2 billion people worldwide have iron-deficiency anemia.⁴ Additionally, patients can be iron deficient without being anemic, a condition thought to be at least twice as common.⁴

Essential for brain function

Research shows the importance of iron to proper brain function.⁵ Iron deficiency in pregnant women is associated with significant neuropsychological impairments in neonates. Rodent studies have demonstrated the importance of iron and the effects of iron deficiency on the hippocampus, corpus striatum, and production of monoamines.⁵ Specifically, iron is a necessary cofactor in the enzymes tryptophan hydroxylase and tyrosine hydroxylase, which produce serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. In rodent studies, monoamine deficits secondary to iron deficiency persist into adulthood even with iron supplementation, which highlights the importance of preventing iron deficiency during pregnancy and early life.⁵ While most research has focused on the impact of iron deficiency in infancy and early childhood, iron deficiency has an ongoing impact into adulthood, even if treated.⁶

Iron deficiency and psychiatric symptoms

Current research suggests an association between iron deficiency or low ferritin levels and psychiatric disorders, specifically depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia. In a web survey of 11,876 adults, Hidese et al⁷ found an association between a self-reported history of iron deficiency anemia and a self-reported history of depression. Another study of 528 municipal employees found an association between low serum ferritin concentrations and a high prevalence of depressive symptoms among men; no statistically significant association was detected in women.⁸ In an analysis of the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database from 2000 to 2012, Lee et al⁹ found a statistically significant increased risk of anxiety disorders, depression, sleep disorders, and psychotic disorders in patients with iron deficiency anemia after controlling for multiple confounders. Xu et al¹⁰ used quantitative susceptibility mapping to assess the iron status in certain regions of the brain of 30 patients with first-episode psychosis. They found lower levels of iron in the bilateral substantia nigra, left red nucleus, and left thalamus compared to healthy controls.¹⁰ Kim et al¹¹ found an association between iron deficiency and more severe negative symptoms in 121 patients with first-episode psychosis, which supports the hypothesis that iron deficiency may alter dopamine transmission in the brain.

Iron deficiency has been associated with psychopathology across the lifespan. In a population-based study in Taiwan, Chen et al¹² found an association between iron deficiency anemia and psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents, including mood disorders, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and developmental disorders. At the other end of the age spectrum, in a survey of 1,875 older adults in England, Stewart et al¹³ found an association between low ferritin levels (<45 ng/mL) and depressive symptoms after adjusting for demographic factors and overall health status.

In addition to specific psychiatric disorders and symptoms, iron deficiency is often associated with nonspecific symptoms such as fatigue.¹⁴ Fatigue is a symptom of numerous psychiatric disorders and is included in the DSM diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.¹⁵

Iron supplementation might improve psychiatric symptoms

Some evidence suggests that using iron supplementation to treat iron deficiency can improve psychiatric symptoms. In a 2013 systematic literature review of 10 studies, Greig et al¹⁶ found a link between low iron status and poor cognition, poor mental health scores, and fatigue among women of childbearing age. In this review, 7 studies demonstrated improvement in cognition and 3 demonstrated improvement in mental health with iron supplementation.¹⁶ In a 2021 prospective study, 19 children and adolescents age 6 to 15 who had serum ferritin levels <30 ng/mL were treated with oral iron supplementation for 12 weeks.¹⁷ Participants showed significant improvements in sleep quality, depressive symptoms, and general mood as assessed via the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaires, respectively.¹⁷ A randomized controlled trial of 219 female soldiers who were given iron supplementation or placebo for 8 weeks during basic combat training found that compared to placebo, iron supplementation led to improvements in mood as measured by the POMS questionnaire.¹⁸ Lastly, in a 2016 observational study of 412 adult psychiatric patients, Kassir¹⁹ found most patients (81%) had iron deficiency, defined as a transferrin saturation coefficient <30% or serum ferritin <100 ng/mL. Although these cutoffs are not considered standard and thus may have overrepresented the percentage of patients considered iron-deficient, more than one-half of patients considered iron-deficient in this study experienced a reduction or elimination of psychiatric symptoms following treatment with iron supplementation and/or psychotropic medications.¹⁹

Continue to: Individuals with iron deficiency...

Individuals with iron deficiency without anemia also may see improvement in psychiatric symptoms with iron treatment. In a 2018 systematic review, Houston et al²⁰ evaluated iron supplementation in 1,170 adults who were iron-deficient but not anemic. They found that in these patients, fatigue significantly improved but physical capacity did not.²⁰ Additionally, 2 other studies found iron treatment improved fatigue in nonanemic women.^21,22 In a 2016 systematic review, Pratt et al²³ concluded, “There is emerging evidence that … nonanemic iron deficiency … is a disease in its own right, deserving of further research in the development of strategies for detection and treatment.” Al-Naseem et al²⁴ suggested severity distinguishes iron deficiency with and without anemia.

Your role in assessing and treating iron deficiency

Testing for and treating iron deficiency generally is not a part of routine psychiatric practice. This might be due to apathy given the pervasiveness of iron deficiency, a belief that iron deficiency should be managed by primary care physicians, or a lack of familiarity with how to treat it and the benefits of such treatment for psychiatric patients. However, assessing for and treating iron deficiency in psychiatric patients is important, especially for individuals who are highly susceptible to inadequate iron levels. People at risk for iron deficiency include pregnant women, infants, young children, women with heavy menstrual bleeding, frequent blood donors, patients with cancer, individuals who have gastrointestinal (GI) surgeries or disorders, and those with heart failure.²⁵

Assessment. Iron status can be assessed through an iron studies panel. Because a patient can have iron deficiency without anemia, a complete blood count (CBC) alone does not suffice.²⁶ The iron panel includes serum iron, serum ferritin, serum transferrin or total iron-binding capacity (TIBC), and calculated transferrin saturation (TSAT), which is the ratio of serum iron to TIBC.

Iron deficiency is diagnosed if ferritin is <30 ng/mL, regardless of the hemoglobin concentration or underlying condition, and confirmed by a low TSAT.²⁶ In most guidelines, the cutoff value for TSAT for iron deficiency is <20%. Because the TSAT can be influenced by iron supplements or iron-rich foods, wait several hours to obtain blood after a patient takes an oral iron supplement or eats iron-rich foods. If desired, clinicians can use either ferritin or TSAT alone to diagnose iron deficiency. However, because ferritin can be falsely normal in inflammatory conditions such as obesity and infection, a TSAT may be needed to confirm iron deficiency if there is a high clinical suspicion despite a normal ferritin level.²⁶

Treatment. If iron deficiency is confirmed, instruct your patient to follow up with their primary care physician or the appropriate specialist to evaluate for any underlying etiologies.

Continue to: Iron deficiency should be treated...

Iron deficiency should be treated with supplementation because diet alone is insufficient for replenishing iron stores. Iron replacement can be oral or IV. Oral replacement is effective, safe, inexpensive, easy to obtain, and easy to administer.²⁷ Oral replacement is recommended for adults whose anemia is not severe or who do not have a comorbid condition such as pregnancy, inflammatory bowel conditions, gastric surgery, or chronic kidney disease. When anemia is severe or a patient has one of these comorbid conditions, IV is the preferred method of replacement.²⁷ In these cases, defer treatment to the patient’s primary care physician or specialist. 

There are no clear recommendations on the amount of iron per dose to prescribe.²⁷ The maximum amount of oral iron that can be absorbed is approximately 25 mg/d of elemental iron. A 325 mg ferrous sulfate tablet contains 65 mg of elemental iron, of which approximately 25 mg is absorbed and utilized.²⁷

Emerging evidence suggests that excessive iron dosing may reduce iron absorption and increase adverse effects. In a study of 54 nonanemic young women with iron deficiency who were given iron supplementation, Moretti et al²⁸ found that a large oral dose of iron taken in the morning increased hepcidin, which decreased the absorption of iron taken later for up to 48 hours. They found that 40 to 80 mg of elemental iron given on alternate days may maximize the fractional iron absorbed, increase dosage efficacy, reduce GI exposure to unabsorbed iron, and improve patients’ ability to tolerate iron supplementation.²⁸

Adverse effects from iron supplements occur in up to 70% of patients.²⁷ These can include metallic taste, nausea, vomiting, flatulence, diarrhea, epigastric pain, constipation, and dark stools.²⁷ Using a liquid form may help reduce adverse effects because it can be more easily titrated.²⁷ Tell patients to avoid enteric-coated or sustained-release iron capsules because these are poorly absorbed. Be cautious when prescribing iron supplementation to older adults because these patients tend to have more adverse effects, especially constipation, as well as reduced absorption, and may ultimately need IV treatment. Iron should not be taken with food, calcium supplements, antacids, coffee, tea, or milk.²⁷

The amount of iron present, cost, and adverse effects vary by supplement. The Table^27,29-33 provides more information on available forms of iron. Many forms of iron supplementation are available over-the-counter, and most are equally effective.²⁷ Advise patients to use iron products that have been tested by an independent company, such as ConsumerLab.com. Such companies evaluate products to see if they contain the amount of iron listed on the product’s label; for contamination with lead, cadmium, or arsenic; and for the product’s ability to break apart for absorption.³⁴

Six to 8 weeks of treatment with oral iron supplementation may be necessary before anemia is fully resolved, and it may take up to 6 months for iron stores to be repleted.²⁷ If a patient cannot tolerate an iron supplement, reducing the dose or taking it with meals may help prevent adverse effects, but also will reduce absorption. Auerbach²⁷ recommends assessing tolerability and rechecking the patient’s CBC 2 weeks after starting oral iron replacement, while also checking hemoglobin and the reticulocyte count to see if the patient is responding to treatment. An analysis of 5 studies found that a hemoglobin measurement on Day 14 that shows an increase ≥1.0 g/dL from baseline predicts longer-term and sustained treatment response to continued oral therapy.³⁵ There is no clear consensus for target ferritin levels, but we suggest aiming for a ferritin level >100 ug/L based on recommendations for the treatment of restless legs syndrome.³⁶ We recommend ongoing monitoring every 4 to 6 weeks.

Bottom Line

Iron deficiency is common and can cause or contribute to psychiatric symptoms and disorders. Consider screening patients for iron deficiency and treating it with oral supplementation in individuals without any comorbidities, or referring them to their primary care physician or specialist.

Related Resources

• Berthou C, Iliou JP, Barba D. Iron, neuro-bioavailability and depression. EJHaem. 2021;3(1):263-275.

When left untreated, opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and potentially lethal illness. Despite the availability of safe and effective medications for OUD, the prevalence of opioid use and overdose deaths has been increasing every year.¹ An additional challenge in OUD treatment is the high prevalence of comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD).^2-6 A Clinical Trials Network survey from the National Institute on Drug Abuse found 38% of persons seeking treatment for OUD also had AUD.⁷ Other analyses have found alcohol was involved in approximately one-fifth of opioid-related deaths.⁸ Research also reveals that comorbid OUD and AUD contributes to poor treatment outcomes, more medical comorbidities, and a high risk of death (including overdose death).^4,9 There is no standard of care for this particular patient population.³ This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

To illustrate the various decision points, we will follow 2 hypothetical patients through various stages of treatment (Figure), from their presentation in the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic, through their hospital admission (if needed), and into their outpatient follow-up treatment.

CASE REPORTS

Ms. A and Ms. B present to the ED for evaluation of nausea, vomiting, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. Both patients describe their most recent use of both alcohol and opioids approximately 12 hours ago, and each has been attempting to stop using both substances at home.

Decision-making in the emergency setting

In the ED, a few important decisions need to be made regarding treatment:

• Are the presenting symptoms primarily due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS), or both?
• Does the patient require inpatient medical withdrawal management (detoxification) based on the history and severity of the withdrawal symptoms?
• What are the patient’s treatment goals for their AUD and OUD?
• Is maintenance medication for OUD indicated? If so, which medication is most appropriate?

In the ED, the presentation of individuals affected by both OUD and AUD can be challenging because OWS shares overlapping features with AWS, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. However, although acute OWS is typically very uncomfortable, it is rarely lethal. On the other hand, severe AWS may result in delirium, seizures, and death,¹⁰ which makes it essential to recognize and treat appropriately.

Both Ms. A and Ms. B should be medically evaluated and treated by an emergency medicine physician in conjunction with psychiatric (or addiction medicine) consultation. The ED assessment of a patient presenting with both AUD and OUD should include vital signs monitoring; physical examination; blood work including comprehensive metabolic panel, serum magnesium, and phosphorus; complete blood count; pregnancy test for women of reproductive age; urine drug screen (UDS); urinalysis; and serum ethanol level. Of note, sympathetic hyperactivity is found in both alcohol and opioid withdrawal, and patients with alcohol withdrawal may also have hypokalemia, a condition associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia. Furthermore, a prolonged QTc would affect clinical decision-making about medications for OUD (ie, methadone) and withdrawal management (ie, ondansetron, trazodone, and hydroxyzine). Therefore, an electrocardiogram should be conducted, where appropriate.

Initial treatment of AWS includes vitamin supplementation (thiamine, folic acid, and multivitamins) and benzodiazepine administration (symptom-triggered and/or scheduled taper). It may also include IV fluid resuscitation, analgesics for pain, ondansetron for nausea and vomiting, and other electrolyte repletion as indicated by the laboratory results.¹¹ Additional measures for patients in opioid withdrawal should include alpha-2 agonists such as clonidine or lofexidine for adrenergic symptoms, antiemetics, antidiarrheals, muscle relaxants, anxiolytics such as hydroxyzine, and sleep medications such as trazodone.¹²

Continue to: The next decision...

The next decision is whether the patient needs to be admitted for inpatient treatment. This decision is based primarily on the risk assessment and severity of AWS, including a compelling history of complicated AWS such as seizures or delirium tremens as well as consideration of the complexity and severity of any comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions. Other indications for medical withdrawal management include a history of unsuccessful ambulatory withdrawal management and pregnancy. For severe AWS, a scheduled benzodiazepine taper in addition to the symptom-triggered protocol should be considered.^13-15 A psychiatric evaluation may be obtained in the ED, as long as the patient is sober enough to meaningfully participate in the psychiatric interview. Wherever possible, psychiatric interviews should be supplemented by collateral information.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. A admits to a 5-year history of alcohol and opioid use that meets the criteria for severe AUD and severe OUD. She has previously required inpatient treatment for seizures related to AWS. Laboratory results are notable for a serum ethanol level of 380 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Disposition of patients in alcohol and opioid withdrawal

Given Ms. A’s history of seizures while withdrawing from alcohol, she is appropriate for hospital admission for medically managed withdrawal observation. As previously mentioned, there is clinical overlap between AWS and OWS, and differentiating between the 2 syndromes is essential and may be lifesaving. Whereas anxiety, agitation, diaphoresis, tachycardia, hypertension, and insomnia can be seen in both opioid and alcohol withdrawal, OWS-specific symptoms include mydriasis, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, bone or joint aches, yawning, and piloerection. AWS may present with visual or tactile hallucinations, delirium, and grand mal seizures.¹⁵

The details of inpatient management are beyond the scope of this article; however, both patients should be started on thiamine, folic acid, and a multivitamin. For patients in alcohol withdrawal with a history of poor diet who appear malnourished or have a history of malabsorption (such as gastric bypass surgery), thiamine 100 mg/d IV should be given for 3 to 5 days to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy.¹⁶ Where there is any concern the patient may be exhibiting signs of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome (impaired cognition, evident malnourishment, ataxia, or eye movement abnormalities), high-dose thiamine IV should be given presumptively as follows: 500 mg IV 3 times a day for 3 days, 250 mg/d IV for 5 days, and then oral supplementation 100 mg/d for at least 30 days.¹⁷

In summary, on presentation to the ED, both patients should be medically stabilized and started on benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The risk assessment and the severity of the AWS often determines the level of care.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

On hospital Day 2, Ms. A tells the consulting psychiatrist she would like to start medications to treat her substance use disorders. She has a long history of failed attempts to achieve abstinence from opioids, so she and the psychiatrist agree to initiate a trial of buprenorphine/naloxone for her OUD, 4 mg/1 mg to 8 mg/2 mg for Day 1. Although buprenorphine/naloxone seems to help her alcohol cravings somewhat, she requests additional help. She experiences migraine headaches, which is in part why she began using opioid medications. Via joint decision making with her psychiatrist, she agrees to a trial of topiramate, with a slow titration schedule starting at 25 mg/d.

Continue to: Management decisions

The next issue is to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient’s OUD. Although treating OWS is important in improving the patient’s health, decreasing their discomfort, and facilitating their participation in a psychosocial treatment program,¹⁸ current evidence suggests that opioid withdrawal management alone without medication for OUD rarely leads to long-term recovery.^19,20 Some research suggests that the risk of accidental opioid overdose immediately following acute withdrawal management may actually be increased due to decreased tolerance in these patients.^12,21,22

Three medications have the most evidence for OUD treatment: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.¹⁵ The decision to use buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the OUD, patient history of prior treatment successes and failures, comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions, and patient preference.⁴ Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone is preferred over naltrexone for patients who do not want to or cannot tolerate the physical and emotional discomfort of the opioid withdrawal process, who experience moderate to severe OUD, who have a history of failed abstinence-based treatment, or who have more severe physiological tolerance/dependence.¹² Buprenorphine is a mu opioid receptor partial agonist that has been shown to reduce opioid cravings,²³ provide moderate pain relief,²⁴ and ameliorate OWS.¹² It does not typically result in significant respiratory depression, which is the biggest safety concern for opioid use.¹² Buprenorphine may also treat comorbid AUD at higher doses; however, the data are inconclusive.^25,26 Buprenorphine should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, due to the risk of respiratory depression when combined with alcohol. Patients who continue to drink alcohol but are able to abstain from opioids may consider starting an AUD-specific medication. Pharmacologic options are discussed in more detail in the next section.

For patients who have higher physiological dependence or more severe OUD, methadone may be a reasonable alternative to buprenorphine. Methadone, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, ameliorates OWS, reduces opioid cravings, and reduces the euphoric effects of opioid ingestion if the patient relapses. However, methadone can only be dispensed for the treatment of OUD by a federally-certified treatment program governed by restrictive and federally mandated guidelines. Compared to buprenorphine, methadone is more dangerous in overdose, has more drug interactions, and is more commonly diverted for recreational use.²⁷ Furthermore, methadone should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, because both alcohol and methadone can result in respiratory depression.

By contrast, the first-line treatment for individuals experiencing moderateto severe AUD is typically naltrexone.²⁸ Naltrexone is contraindicated in Ms. A because she has a severe OUD and is unlikely to tolerate the opioid withdrawal process. Research suggests that the use of naltrexone for OUD should be limited to patients who have a mild disorder or who show low physiological dependence.²⁹ Alternatively, acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, or gabapentin should be considered for Ms. A.^4,28,30 Because each of these medications have specific strengths and weaknesses, medication selection should be based on individual patient factors such as comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions and/or patient preference.²⁸

Management decisions: AUD augmentation strategies

Naltrexone is contraindicated for patients who are receiving opioids, including opioid agonist therapy for OUD. Therefore, clinicians need to consider other options for these individuals. There are several medications with good evidence, including acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, and gabapentin. Acamprosate and disulfiram are FDA-approved for AUD; the latter 2 have been used off-label.

Continue to: Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator...

Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator that reduces alcohol cravings and is recommended for patients who have achieved and wish to maintain abstinence. It can be used in patients with liver disease, because it is not hepatically metabolized.³⁰ Topiramate is also used to reduce alcohol cravings. It antagonizes glutamate at alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) and kainite receptors, facilitates gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) function, and reduces the extracellular release of dopamine in the mesocorticolimbic regions of the brain.³⁰ Topiramate is a reasonable option for patients with a seizure disorder, a history of migraine headaches,³⁰ or who are overweight or obese and wish to lose weight.³¹ In a nonrandomized study, topiramate reduced alcohol intake and cravings more than naltrexone.³²

Disulfiram is another second-line therapy for AUD. It is best used under close supervision because it does not reduce alcohol cravings but makes ingesting alcohol extremely aversive by preventing the breakdown of the alcohol metabolite acetaldehyde, and in doing so causes a cluster of unpleasant symptoms, including sweating, palpitations, flushing, nausea/vomiting, and increased sympathetic tone.²⁸ Disulfiram only works if it is taken daily, and it requires a high degree of motivation and/or daily supervision at home or in the clinic.³³ It is not recommended to be used as a first-line treatment based on its potential toxicity, adverse effects, and mixed findings on its efficacy. In addition, it should not be given to medically vulnerable/fragile individuals.

Lastly, gabapentin, a voltage-gated calcium channel modulator, may also be used as a second-line agent for AUD. Patients who have started alcohol withdrawal management with gabapentin may wish to continue treatment to assist with craving suppression.³⁰ It is also a good choice for patients who have comorbid diabetic neuropathy or other neuro­pathic pain conditions, anxiety, or insomnia.^30,34 Of note, there have been reports of gabapentin misuse.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. B presents to the ED with a 5-year history of moderate AUD and a 2-year history of mild OUD. She denies a history of severe or complicated AWS. Her laboratory results are significant for a serum ethanol level of 250 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Management decisions: Naltrexone for OUD

In contrast to Ms. A, Ms. B is likely able to complete the opioid withdrawal management process. It is reasonable to treat her uncomplicated, moderate alcohol withdrawal as an outpatient with gabapentin or a benzodiazepine taper. Had her AUD been as severe as Ms. A’s, or if she were unsuccessful with ambulatory withdrawal treatment attempts, Ms. B would also be a candidate for inpatient medical treatment for alcohol withdrawal regardless of the severity of her OUD. Ongoing pharmacotherapy for her AUD after withdrawal management is the same as previously outlined. After Ms. B completes the taper (typically 1 week after the ED visit), she should follow up for initiation of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Ms. B is an ideal candidate for naltrexone, which targets both AUD and OUD.

Continue to: Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic...

Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic competitive antagonist at mu-opioid receptors and a partial agonist at kappa receptors; it has little to no activity at delta receptors. Naltrexone has been shown to reduce alcohol cravings and diminish the euphoric effects of alcohol by reducing endogenous opioid release and receptor activation.³⁵ Thus, even when patients do use alcohol while taking naltrexone, the amount of alcohol they use is typically substantially reduced.³⁶ In fact, at a standard dose of 50 mg/d, 95% of mu-opioid receptors are occupied and are shown to yield approximately 40% alcohol abstinence rates at 1 year.³⁶

Once Ms. B has completed withdrawal management from both alcohol and opioids, she should have a trial period of oral naltrexone to prove tolerability, and then transition to the long-acting injectable (LAI) formulation. Patients able to complete withdrawal management from opioids and transition to LAI naltrexone have been shown to have equivalent rates of successful abstinence from opioids compared to buprenorphine.³⁷ Though Ms. B could opt to try buprenorphine to treat her mild OUD, naltrexone would be the preferred option because it has 3 advantages:

• it blocks the mu-opioid receptor, which prevents euphoria if an illicit substance is used
• it does not cause physiologic dependence or withdrawal syndrome if/when stopped
• if it is not effective, it is easy to switch to buprenorphine.

Lastly, all patients with OUD should be prescribed a rescue naloxone kit, in accordance with harm-reduction guidelines. Naloxone, a potent opioid receptor antagonist, is used to prevent or reverse respiratory depression in opioid overdose. Naloxone rescue kits include intranasal naloxone, which makes it easy for nonclinician bystanders to administer while waiting for emergency transport.³⁸ Most states allow naloxone kits to be prescribed to individuals who have a concern for overdose among friends, family, or others in the community. The wide distribution and easy availability of naloxone rescue kits have been essential in decreasing overdose deaths among patients who misuse opioids.³⁹

Take-home points

Patients with both OUD and AUD are relatively common and often pose significant management challenges when they present to the clinic or the ED in withdrawal. Because severe AWS can be life-threatening, hospitalization should be considered. OWS is often accompanied by intense cravings that can lead to relapse and the risk of accidental opioid overdose/death. As soon as patients are able to engage in a discussion about their treatment options, clinicians need to clarify the patient’s goals and priorities. In medications for OUD, the decision of whether to use buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone is guided by the severity of the OUD, the patient’s past treatment experience (illicit as well as prescribed), and patient preference. If the OUD is mild or if the patient prefers to avoid opioid agonist medications and can tolerate the opioid withdrawal process, both the AUD and OUD can be treated with naltrexone, preferably with the LAI formulation. Other AUD medications and outpatient psychotherapy may be used to augment treatment outcomes. For patients with a moderate to severe OUD, buprenorphine (preferably with immediate initiation) or methadone therapy should be offered. Patients with comorbid OUD and AUD who are treated with opioid agonists should be offered medication for AUD other than naltrexone, as outlined above. All patients with substance use disorders would benefit from psychosocial interventions, including group and individual therapy as well as community sober support groups.

Bottom Line

Patients with comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) often pose significant management challenges when they present in withdrawal. This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/ cp.0305
• Eatmon CV, Trent K. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in patients with hepatic impairment. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(12):25-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0068

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Clonidine • Catapres
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lofexidine • Lucemyra
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Naloxone • Narcan
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Ondansetron • Zofran
Topiramate • Topamax
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

When left untreated, opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and potentially lethal illness. Despite the availability of safe and effective medications for OUD, the prevalence of opioid use and overdose deaths has been increasing every year.¹ An additional challenge in OUD treatment is the high prevalence of comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD).^2-6 A Clinical Trials Network survey from the National Institute on Drug Abuse found 38% of persons seeking treatment for OUD also had AUD.⁷ Other analyses have found alcohol was involved in approximately one-fifth of opioid-related deaths.⁸ Research also reveals that comorbid OUD and AUD contributes to poor treatment outcomes, more medical comorbidities, and a high risk of death (including overdose death).^4,9 There is no standard of care for this particular patient population.³ This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

To illustrate the various decision points, we will follow 2 hypothetical patients through various stages of treatment (Figure), from their presentation in the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic, through their hospital admission (if needed), and into their outpatient follow-up treatment.

CASE REPORTS

Ms. A and Ms. B present to the ED for evaluation of nausea, vomiting, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. Both patients describe their most recent use of both alcohol and opioids approximately 12 hours ago, and each has been attempting to stop using both substances at home.

Decision-making in the emergency setting

In the ED, a few important decisions need to be made regarding treatment:

• Are the presenting symptoms primarily due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS), or both?
• Does the patient require inpatient medical withdrawal management (detoxification) based on the history and severity of the withdrawal symptoms?
• What are the patient’s treatment goals for their AUD and OUD?
• Is maintenance medication for OUD indicated? If so, which medication is most appropriate?

In the ED, the presentation of individuals affected by both OUD and AUD can be challenging because OWS shares overlapping features with AWS, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. However, although acute OWS is typically very uncomfortable, it is rarely lethal. On the other hand, severe AWS may result in delirium, seizures, and death,¹⁰ which makes it essential to recognize and treat appropriately.

Both Ms. A and Ms. B should be medically evaluated and treated by an emergency medicine physician in conjunction with psychiatric (or addiction medicine) consultation. The ED assessment of a patient presenting with both AUD and OUD should include vital signs monitoring; physical examination; blood work including comprehensive metabolic panel, serum magnesium, and phosphorus; complete blood count; pregnancy test for women of reproductive age; urine drug screen (UDS); urinalysis; and serum ethanol level. Of note, sympathetic hyperactivity is found in both alcohol and opioid withdrawal, and patients with alcohol withdrawal may also have hypokalemia, a condition associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia. Furthermore, a prolonged QTc would affect clinical decision-making about medications for OUD (ie, methadone) and withdrawal management (ie, ondansetron, trazodone, and hydroxyzine). Therefore, an electrocardiogram should be conducted, where appropriate.

Initial treatment of AWS includes vitamin supplementation (thiamine, folic acid, and multivitamins) and benzodiazepine administration (symptom-triggered and/or scheduled taper). It may also include IV fluid resuscitation, analgesics for pain, ondansetron for nausea and vomiting, and other electrolyte repletion as indicated by the laboratory results.¹¹ Additional measures for patients in opioid withdrawal should include alpha-2 agonists such as clonidine or lofexidine for adrenergic symptoms, antiemetics, antidiarrheals, muscle relaxants, anxiolytics such as hydroxyzine, and sleep medications such as trazodone.¹²

Continue to: The next decision...

The next decision is whether the patient needs to be admitted for inpatient treatment. This decision is based primarily on the risk assessment and severity of AWS, including a compelling history of complicated AWS such as seizures or delirium tremens as well as consideration of the complexity and severity of any comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions. Other indications for medical withdrawal management include a history of unsuccessful ambulatory withdrawal management and pregnancy. For severe AWS, a scheduled benzodiazepine taper in addition to the symptom-triggered protocol should be considered.^13-15 A psychiatric evaluation may be obtained in the ED, as long as the patient is sober enough to meaningfully participate in the psychiatric interview. Wherever possible, psychiatric interviews should be supplemented by collateral information.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. A admits to a 5-year history of alcohol and opioid use that meets the criteria for severe AUD and severe OUD. She has previously required inpatient treatment for seizures related to AWS. Laboratory results are notable for a serum ethanol level of 380 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Disposition of patients in alcohol and opioid withdrawal

Given Ms. A’s history of seizures while withdrawing from alcohol, she is appropriate for hospital admission for medically managed withdrawal observation. As previously mentioned, there is clinical overlap between AWS and OWS, and differentiating between the 2 syndromes is essential and may be lifesaving. Whereas anxiety, agitation, diaphoresis, tachycardia, hypertension, and insomnia can be seen in both opioid and alcohol withdrawal, OWS-specific symptoms include mydriasis, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, bone or joint aches, yawning, and piloerection. AWS may present with visual or tactile hallucinations, delirium, and grand mal seizures.¹⁵

The details of inpatient management are beyond the scope of this article; however, both patients should be started on thiamine, folic acid, and a multivitamin. For patients in alcohol withdrawal with a history of poor diet who appear malnourished or have a history of malabsorption (such as gastric bypass surgery), thiamine 100 mg/d IV should be given for 3 to 5 days to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy.¹⁶ Where there is any concern the patient may be exhibiting signs of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome (impaired cognition, evident malnourishment, ataxia, or eye movement abnormalities), high-dose thiamine IV should be given presumptively as follows: 500 mg IV 3 times a day for 3 days, 250 mg/d IV for 5 days, and then oral supplementation 100 mg/d for at least 30 days.¹⁷

In summary, on presentation to the ED, both patients should be medically stabilized and started on benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The risk assessment and the severity of the AWS often determines the level of care.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

On hospital Day 2, Ms. A tells the consulting psychiatrist she would like to start medications to treat her substance use disorders. She has a long history of failed attempts to achieve abstinence from opioids, so she and the psychiatrist agree to initiate a trial of buprenorphine/naloxone for her OUD, 4 mg/1 mg to 8 mg/2 mg for Day 1. Although buprenorphine/naloxone seems to help her alcohol cravings somewhat, she requests additional help. She experiences migraine headaches, which is in part why she began using opioid medications. Via joint decision making with her psychiatrist, she agrees to a trial of topiramate, with a slow titration schedule starting at 25 mg/d.

Continue to: Management decisions

The next issue is to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient’s OUD. Although treating OWS is important in improving the patient’s health, decreasing their discomfort, and facilitating their participation in a psychosocial treatment program,¹⁸ current evidence suggests that opioid withdrawal management alone without medication for OUD rarely leads to long-term recovery.^19,20 Some research suggests that the risk of accidental opioid overdose immediately following acute withdrawal management may actually be increased due to decreased tolerance in these patients.^12,21,22

Three medications have the most evidence for OUD treatment: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.¹⁵ The decision to use buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the OUD, patient history of prior treatment successes and failures, comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions, and patient preference.⁴ Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone is preferred over naltrexone for patients who do not want to or cannot tolerate the physical and emotional discomfort of the opioid withdrawal process, who experience moderate to severe OUD, who have a history of failed abstinence-based treatment, or who have more severe physiological tolerance/dependence.¹² Buprenorphine is a mu opioid receptor partial agonist that has been shown to reduce opioid cravings,²³ provide moderate pain relief,²⁴ and ameliorate OWS.¹² It does not typically result in significant respiratory depression, which is the biggest safety concern for opioid use.¹² Buprenorphine may also treat comorbid AUD at higher doses; however, the data are inconclusive.^25,26 Buprenorphine should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, due to the risk of respiratory depression when combined with alcohol. Patients who continue to drink alcohol but are able to abstain from opioids may consider starting an AUD-specific medication. Pharmacologic options are discussed in more detail in the next section.

For patients who have higher physiological dependence or more severe OUD, methadone may be a reasonable alternative to buprenorphine. Methadone, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, ameliorates OWS, reduces opioid cravings, and reduces the euphoric effects of opioid ingestion if the patient relapses. However, methadone can only be dispensed for the treatment of OUD by a federally-certified treatment program governed by restrictive and federally mandated guidelines. Compared to buprenorphine, methadone is more dangerous in overdose, has more drug interactions, and is more commonly diverted for recreational use.²⁷ Furthermore, methadone should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, because both alcohol and methadone can result in respiratory depression.

By contrast, the first-line treatment for individuals experiencing moderateto severe AUD is typically naltrexone.²⁸ Naltrexone is contraindicated in Ms. A because she has a severe OUD and is unlikely to tolerate the opioid withdrawal process. Research suggests that the use of naltrexone for OUD should be limited to patients who have a mild disorder or who show low physiological dependence.²⁹ Alternatively, acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, or gabapentin should be considered for Ms. A.^4,28,30 Because each of these medications have specific strengths and weaknesses, medication selection should be based on individual patient factors such as comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions and/or patient preference.²⁸

Management decisions: AUD augmentation strategies

Naltrexone is contraindicated for patients who are receiving opioids, including opioid agonist therapy for OUD. Therefore, clinicians need to consider other options for these individuals. There are several medications with good evidence, including acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, and gabapentin. Acamprosate and disulfiram are FDA-approved for AUD; the latter 2 have been used off-label.

Continue to: Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator...

Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator that reduces alcohol cravings and is recommended for patients who have achieved and wish to maintain abstinence. It can be used in patients with liver disease, because it is not hepatically metabolized.³⁰ Topiramate is also used to reduce alcohol cravings. It antagonizes glutamate at alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) and kainite receptors, facilitates gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) function, and reduces the extracellular release of dopamine in the mesocorticolimbic regions of the brain.³⁰ Topiramate is a reasonable option for patients with a seizure disorder, a history of migraine headaches,³⁰ or who are overweight or obese and wish to lose weight.³¹ In a nonrandomized study, topiramate reduced alcohol intake and cravings more than naltrexone.³²

Disulfiram is another second-line therapy for AUD. It is best used under close supervision because it does not reduce alcohol cravings but makes ingesting alcohol extremely aversive by preventing the breakdown of the alcohol metabolite acetaldehyde, and in doing so causes a cluster of unpleasant symptoms, including sweating, palpitations, flushing, nausea/vomiting, and increased sympathetic tone.²⁸ Disulfiram only works if it is taken daily, and it requires a high degree of motivation and/or daily supervision at home or in the clinic.³³ It is not recommended to be used as a first-line treatment based on its potential toxicity, adverse effects, and mixed findings on its efficacy. In addition, it should not be given to medically vulnerable/fragile individuals.

Lastly, gabapentin, a voltage-gated calcium channel modulator, may also be used as a second-line agent for AUD. Patients who have started alcohol withdrawal management with gabapentin may wish to continue treatment to assist with craving suppression.³⁰ It is also a good choice for patients who have comorbid diabetic neuropathy or other neuro­pathic pain conditions, anxiety, or insomnia.^30,34 Of note, there have been reports of gabapentin misuse.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. B presents to the ED with a 5-year history of moderate AUD and a 2-year history of mild OUD. She denies a history of severe or complicated AWS. Her laboratory results are significant for a serum ethanol level of 250 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Management decisions: Naltrexone for OUD

In contrast to Ms. A, Ms. B is likely able to complete the opioid withdrawal management process. It is reasonable to treat her uncomplicated, moderate alcohol withdrawal as an outpatient with gabapentin or a benzodiazepine taper. Had her AUD been as severe as Ms. A’s, or if she were unsuccessful with ambulatory withdrawal treatment attempts, Ms. B would also be a candidate for inpatient medical treatment for alcohol withdrawal regardless of the severity of her OUD. Ongoing pharmacotherapy for her AUD after withdrawal management is the same as previously outlined. After Ms. B completes the taper (typically 1 week after the ED visit), she should follow up for initiation of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Ms. B is an ideal candidate for naltrexone, which targets both AUD and OUD.

Continue to: Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic...

Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic competitive antagonist at mu-opioid receptors and a partial agonist at kappa receptors; it has little to no activity at delta receptors. Naltrexone has been shown to reduce alcohol cravings and diminish the euphoric effects of alcohol by reducing endogenous opioid release and receptor activation.³⁵ Thus, even when patients do use alcohol while taking naltrexone, the amount of alcohol they use is typically substantially reduced.³⁶ In fact, at a standard dose of 50 mg/d, 95% of mu-opioid receptors are occupied and are shown to yield approximately 40% alcohol abstinence rates at 1 year.³⁶

Once Ms. B has completed withdrawal management from both alcohol and opioids, she should have a trial period of oral naltrexone to prove tolerability, and then transition to the long-acting injectable (LAI) formulation. Patients able to complete withdrawal management from opioids and transition to LAI naltrexone have been shown to have equivalent rates of successful abstinence from opioids compared to buprenorphine.³⁷ Though Ms. B could opt to try buprenorphine to treat her mild OUD, naltrexone would be the preferred option because it has 3 advantages:

• it blocks the mu-opioid receptor, which prevents euphoria if an illicit substance is used
• it does not cause physiologic dependence or withdrawal syndrome if/when stopped
• if it is not effective, it is easy to switch to buprenorphine.

Lastly, all patients with OUD should be prescribed a rescue naloxone kit, in accordance with harm-reduction guidelines. Naloxone, a potent opioid receptor antagonist, is used to prevent or reverse respiratory depression in opioid overdose. Naloxone rescue kits include intranasal naloxone, which makes it easy for nonclinician bystanders to administer while waiting for emergency transport.³⁸ Most states allow naloxone kits to be prescribed to individuals who have a concern for overdose among friends, family, or others in the community. The wide distribution and easy availability of naloxone rescue kits have been essential in decreasing overdose deaths among patients who misuse opioids.³⁹

Take-home points

Patients with both OUD and AUD are relatively common and often pose significant management challenges when they present to the clinic or the ED in withdrawal. Because severe AWS can be life-threatening, hospitalization should be considered. OWS is often accompanied by intense cravings that can lead to relapse and the risk of accidental opioid overdose/death. As soon as patients are able to engage in a discussion about their treatment options, clinicians need to clarify the patient’s goals and priorities. In medications for OUD, the decision of whether to use buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone is guided by the severity of the OUD, the patient’s past treatment experience (illicit as well as prescribed), and patient preference. If the OUD is mild or if the patient prefers to avoid opioid agonist medications and can tolerate the opioid withdrawal process, both the AUD and OUD can be treated with naltrexone, preferably with the LAI formulation. Other AUD medications and outpatient psychotherapy may be used to augment treatment outcomes. For patients with a moderate to severe OUD, buprenorphine (preferably with immediate initiation) or methadone therapy should be offered. Patients with comorbid OUD and AUD who are treated with opioid agonists should be offered medication for AUD other than naltrexone, as outlined above. All patients with substance use disorders would benefit from psychosocial interventions, including group and individual therapy as well as community sober support groups.

Bottom Line

Patients with comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) often pose significant management challenges when they present in withdrawal. This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/ cp.0305
• Eatmon CV, Trent K. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in patients with hepatic impairment. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(12):25-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0068

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Clonidine • Catapres
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lofexidine • Lucemyra
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Naloxone • Narcan
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Ondansetron • Zofran
Topiramate • Topamax
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

When left untreated, opioid use disorder (OUD) is a debilitating and potentially lethal illness. Despite the availability of safe and effective medications for OUD, the prevalence of opioid use and overdose deaths has been increasing every year.¹ An additional challenge in OUD treatment is the high prevalence of comorbid alcohol use disorder (AUD).^2-6 A Clinical Trials Network survey from the National Institute on Drug Abuse found 38% of persons seeking treatment for OUD also had AUD.⁷ Other analyses have found alcohol was involved in approximately one-fifth of opioid-related deaths.⁸ Research also reveals that comorbid OUD and AUD contributes to poor treatment outcomes, more medical comorbidities, and a high risk of death (including overdose death).^4,9 There is no standard of care for this particular patient population.³ This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

To illustrate the various decision points, we will follow 2 hypothetical patients through various stages of treatment (Figure), from their presentation in the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic, through their hospital admission (if needed), and into their outpatient follow-up treatment.

CASE REPORTS

Ms. A and Ms. B present to the ED for evaluation of nausea, vomiting, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. Both patients describe their most recent use of both alcohol and opioids approximately 12 hours ago, and each has been attempting to stop using both substances at home.

Decision-making in the emergency setting

In the ED, a few important decisions need to be made regarding treatment:

• Are the presenting symptoms primarily due to alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), opioid withdrawal syndrome (OWS), or both?
• Does the patient require inpatient medical withdrawal management (detoxification) based on the history and severity of the withdrawal symptoms?
• What are the patient’s treatment goals for their AUD and OUD?
• Is maintenance medication for OUD indicated? If so, which medication is most appropriate?

In the ED, the presentation of individuals affected by both OUD and AUD can be challenging because OWS shares overlapping features with AWS, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, sweating, anxiety, and tremor. However, although acute OWS is typically very uncomfortable, it is rarely lethal. On the other hand, severe AWS may result in delirium, seizures, and death,¹⁰ which makes it essential to recognize and treat appropriately.

Both Ms. A and Ms. B should be medically evaluated and treated by an emergency medicine physician in conjunction with psychiatric (or addiction medicine) consultation. The ED assessment of a patient presenting with both AUD and OUD should include vital signs monitoring; physical examination; blood work including comprehensive metabolic panel, serum magnesium, and phosphorus; complete blood count; pregnancy test for women of reproductive age; urine drug screen (UDS); urinalysis; and serum ethanol level. Of note, sympathetic hyperactivity is found in both alcohol and opioid withdrawal, and patients with alcohol withdrawal may also have hypokalemia, a condition associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia. Furthermore, a prolonged QTc would affect clinical decision-making about medications for OUD (ie, methadone) and withdrawal management (ie, ondansetron, trazodone, and hydroxyzine). Therefore, an electrocardiogram should be conducted, where appropriate.

Initial treatment of AWS includes vitamin supplementation (thiamine, folic acid, and multivitamins) and benzodiazepine administration (symptom-triggered and/or scheduled taper). It may also include IV fluid resuscitation, analgesics for pain, ondansetron for nausea and vomiting, and other electrolyte repletion as indicated by the laboratory results.¹¹ Additional measures for patients in opioid withdrawal should include alpha-2 agonists such as clonidine or lofexidine for adrenergic symptoms, antiemetics, antidiarrheals, muscle relaxants, anxiolytics such as hydroxyzine, and sleep medications such as trazodone.¹²

Continue to: The next decision...

The next decision is whether the patient needs to be admitted for inpatient treatment. This decision is based primarily on the risk assessment and severity of AWS, including a compelling history of complicated AWS such as seizures or delirium tremens as well as consideration of the complexity and severity of any comorbid medical or psychiatric conditions. Other indications for medical withdrawal management include a history of unsuccessful ambulatory withdrawal management and pregnancy. For severe AWS, a scheduled benzodiazepine taper in addition to the symptom-triggered protocol should be considered.^13-15 A psychiatric evaluation may be obtained in the ED, as long as the patient is sober enough to meaningfully participate in the psychiatric interview. Wherever possible, psychiatric interviews should be supplemented by collateral information.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. A admits to a 5-year history of alcohol and opioid use that meets the criteria for severe AUD and severe OUD. She has previously required inpatient treatment for seizures related to AWS. Laboratory results are notable for a serum ethanol level of 380 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Disposition of patients in alcohol and opioid withdrawal

Given Ms. A’s history of seizures while withdrawing from alcohol, she is appropriate for hospital admission for medically managed withdrawal observation. As previously mentioned, there is clinical overlap between AWS and OWS, and differentiating between the 2 syndromes is essential and may be lifesaving. Whereas anxiety, agitation, diaphoresis, tachycardia, hypertension, and insomnia can be seen in both opioid and alcohol withdrawal, OWS-specific symptoms include mydriasis, lacrimation, rhinorrhea, bone or joint aches, yawning, and piloerection. AWS may present with visual or tactile hallucinations, delirium, and grand mal seizures.¹⁵

The details of inpatient management are beyond the scope of this article; however, both patients should be started on thiamine, folic acid, and a multivitamin. For patients in alcohol withdrawal with a history of poor diet who appear malnourished or have a history of malabsorption (such as gastric bypass surgery), thiamine 100 mg/d IV should be given for 3 to 5 days to prevent Wernicke encephalopathy.¹⁶ Where there is any concern the patient may be exhibiting signs of Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome (impaired cognition, evident malnourishment, ataxia, or eye movement abnormalities), high-dose thiamine IV should be given presumptively as follows: 500 mg IV 3 times a day for 3 days, 250 mg/d IV for 5 days, and then oral supplementation 100 mg/d for at least 30 days.¹⁷

In summary, on presentation to the ED, both patients should be medically stabilized and started on benzodiazepines for alcohol withdrawal. The risk assessment and the severity of the AWS often determines the level of care.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

On hospital Day 2, Ms. A tells the consulting psychiatrist she would like to start medications to treat her substance use disorders. She has a long history of failed attempts to achieve abstinence from opioids, so she and the psychiatrist agree to initiate a trial of buprenorphine/naloxone for her OUD, 4 mg/1 mg to 8 mg/2 mg for Day 1. Although buprenorphine/naloxone seems to help her alcohol cravings somewhat, she requests additional help. She experiences migraine headaches, which is in part why she began using opioid medications. Via joint decision making with her psychiatrist, she agrees to a trial of topiramate, with a slow titration schedule starting at 25 mg/d.

Continue to: Management decisions

The next issue is to determine the appropriate treatment for the patient’s OUD. Although treating OWS is important in improving the patient’s health, decreasing their discomfort, and facilitating their participation in a psychosocial treatment program,¹⁸ current evidence suggests that opioid withdrawal management alone without medication for OUD rarely leads to long-term recovery.^19,20 Some research suggests that the risk of accidental opioid overdose immediately following acute withdrawal management may actually be increased due to decreased tolerance in these patients.^12,21,22

Three medications have the most evidence for OUD treatment: buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone.¹⁵ The decision to use buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone depends on a variety of factors, including the severity of the OUD, patient history of prior treatment successes and failures, comorbid medical and psychiatric conditions, and patient preference.⁴ Treatment with buprenorphine or methadone is preferred over naltrexone for patients who do not want to or cannot tolerate the physical and emotional discomfort of the opioid withdrawal process, who experience moderate to severe OUD, who have a history of failed abstinence-based treatment, or who have more severe physiological tolerance/dependence.¹² Buprenorphine is a mu opioid receptor partial agonist that has been shown to reduce opioid cravings,²³ provide moderate pain relief,²⁴ and ameliorate OWS.¹² It does not typically result in significant respiratory depression, which is the biggest safety concern for opioid use.¹² Buprenorphine may also treat comorbid AUD at higher doses; however, the data are inconclusive.^25,26 Buprenorphine should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, due to the risk of respiratory depression when combined with alcohol. Patients who continue to drink alcohol but are able to abstain from opioids may consider starting an AUD-specific medication. Pharmacologic options are discussed in more detail in the next section.

For patients who have higher physiological dependence or more severe OUD, methadone may be a reasonable alternative to buprenorphine. Methadone, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, ameliorates OWS, reduces opioid cravings, and reduces the euphoric effects of opioid ingestion if the patient relapses. However, methadone can only be dispensed for the treatment of OUD by a federally-certified treatment program governed by restrictive and federally mandated guidelines. Compared to buprenorphine, methadone is more dangerous in overdose, has more drug interactions, and is more commonly diverted for recreational use.²⁷ Furthermore, methadone should be prescribed with caution to patients with comorbid, uncontrolled AUD, because both alcohol and methadone can result in respiratory depression.

By contrast, the first-line treatment for individuals experiencing moderateto severe AUD is typically naltrexone.²⁸ Naltrexone is contraindicated in Ms. A because she has a severe OUD and is unlikely to tolerate the opioid withdrawal process. Research suggests that the use of naltrexone for OUD should be limited to patients who have a mild disorder or who show low physiological dependence.²⁹ Alternatively, acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, or gabapentin should be considered for Ms. A.^4,28,30 Because each of these medications have specific strengths and weaknesses, medication selection should be based on individual patient factors such as comorbid psychiatric and medical conditions and/or patient preference.²⁸

Management decisions: AUD augmentation strategies

Naltrexone is contraindicated for patients who are receiving opioids, including opioid agonist therapy for OUD. Therefore, clinicians need to consider other options for these individuals. There are several medications with good evidence, including acamprosate, disulfiram, topiramate, and gabapentin. Acamprosate and disulfiram are FDA-approved for AUD; the latter 2 have been used off-label.

Continue to: Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator...

Acamprosate is a glutamate receptor modulator that reduces alcohol cravings and is recommended for patients who have achieved and wish to maintain abstinence. It can be used in patients with liver disease, because it is not hepatically metabolized.³⁰ Topiramate is also used to reduce alcohol cravings. It antagonizes glutamate at alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole-propionate (AMPA) and kainite receptors, facilitates gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) function, and reduces the extracellular release of dopamine in the mesocorticolimbic regions of the brain.³⁰ Topiramate is a reasonable option for patients with a seizure disorder, a history of migraine headaches,³⁰ or who are overweight or obese and wish to lose weight.³¹ In a nonrandomized study, topiramate reduced alcohol intake and cravings more than naltrexone.³²

Disulfiram is another second-line therapy for AUD. It is best used under close supervision because it does not reduce alcohol cravings but makes ingesting alcohol extremely aversive by preventing the breakdown of the alcohol metabolite acetaldehyde, and in doing so causes a cluster of unpleasant symptoms, including sweating, palpitations, flushing, nausea/vomiting, and increased sympathetic tone.²⁸ Disulfiram only works if it is taken daily, and it requires a high degree of motivation and/or daily supervision at home or in the clinic.³³ It is not recommended to be used as a first-line treatment based on its potential toxicity, adverse effects, and mixed findings on its efficacy. In addition, it should not be given to medically vulnerable/fragile individuals.

Lastly, gabapentin, a voltage-gated calcium channel modulator, may also be used as a second-line agent for AUD. Patients who have started alcohol withdrawal management with gabapentin may wish to continue treatment to assist with craving suppression.³⁰ It is also a good choice for patients who have comorbid diabetic neuropathy or other neuro­pathic pain conditions, anxiety, or insomnia.^30,34 Of note, there have been reports of gabapentin misuse.

CASE REPORTS CONTINUED

Ms. B presents to the ED with a 5-year history of moderate AUD and a 2-year history of mild OUD. She denies a history of severe or complicated AWS. Her laboratory results are significant for a serum ethanol level of 250 mg/dL, UDS positive for opioids, and a negative pregnancy test.

Management decisions: Naltrexone for OUD

In contrast to Ms. A, Ms. B is likely able to complete the opioid withdrawal management process. It is reasonable to treat her uncomplicated, moderate alcohol withdrawal as an outpatient with gabapentin or a benzodiazepine taper. Had her AUD been as severe as Ms. A’s, or if she were unsuccessful with ambulatory withdrawal treatment attempts, Ms. B would also be a candidate for inpatient medical treatment for alcohol withdrawal regardless of the severity of her OUD. Ongoing pharmacotherapy for her AUD after withdrawal management is the same as previously outlined. After Ms. B completes the taper (typically 1 week after the ED visit), she should follow up for initiation of pharmacotherapy for AUD. Ms. B is an ideal candidate for naltrexone, which targets both AUD and OUD.

Continue to: Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic...

Naltrexone is a semi-synthetic competitive antagonist at mu-opioid receptors and a partial agonist at kappa receptors; it has little to no activity at delta receptors. Naltrexone has been shown to reduce alcohol cravings and diminish the euphoric effects of alcohol by reducing endogenous opioid release and receptor activation.³⁵ Thus, even when patients do use alcohol while taking naltrexone, the amount of alcohol they use is typically substantially reduced.³⁶ In fact, at a standard dose of 50 mg/d, 95% of mu-opioid receptors are occupied and are shown to yield approximately 40% alcohol abstinence rates at 1 year.³⁶

Once Ms. B has completed withdrawal management from both alcohol and opioids, she should have a trial period of oral naltrexone to prove tolerability, and then transition to the long-acting injectable (LAI) formulation. Patients able to complete withdrawal management from opioids and transition to LAI naltrexone have been shown to have equivalent rates of successful abstinence from opioids compared to buprenorphine.³⁷ Though Ms. B could opt to try buprenorphine to treat her mild OUD, naltrexone would be the preferred option because it has 3 advantages:

• it blocks the mu-opioid receptor, which prevents euphoria if an illicit substance is used
• it does not cause physiologic dependence or withdrawal syndrome if/when stopped
• if it is not effective, it is easy to switch to buprenorphine.

Lastly, all patients with OUD should be prescribed a rescue naloxone kit, in accordance with harm-reduction guidelines. Naloxone, a potent opioid receptor antagonist, is used to prevent or reverse respiratory depression in opioid overdose. Naloxone rescue kits include intranasal naloxone, which makes it easy for nonclinician bystanders to administer while waiting for emergency transport.³⁸ Most states allow naloxone kits to be prescribed to individuals who have a concern for overdose among friends, family, or others in the community. The wide distribution and easy availability of naloxone rescue kits have been essential in decreasing overdose deaths among patients who misuse opioids.³⁹

Take-home points

Patients with both OUD and AUD are relatively common and often pose significant management challenges when they present to the clinic or the ED in withdrawal. Because severe AWS can be life-threatening, hospitalization should be considered. OWS is often accompanied by intense cravings that can lead to relapse and the risk of accidental opioid overdose/death. As soon as patients are able to engage in a discussion about their treatment options, clinicians need to clarify the patient’s goals and priorities. In medications for OUD, the decision of whether to use buprenorphine, naltrexone, or methadone is guided by the severity of the OUD, the patient’s past treatment experience (illicit as well as prescribed), and patient preference. If the OUD is mild or if the patient prefers to avoid opioid agonist medications and can tolerate the opioid withdrawal process, both the AUD and OUD can be treated with naltrexone, preferably with the LAI formulation. Other AUD medications and outpatient psychotherapy may be used to augment treatment outcomes. For patients with a moderate to severe OUD, buprenorphine (preferably with immediate initiation) or methadone therapy should be offered. Patients with comorbid OUD and AUD who are treated with opioid agonists should be offered medication for AUD other than naltrexone, as outlined above. All patients with substance use disorders would benefit from psychosocial interventions, including group and individual therapy as well as community sober support groups.

Bottom Line

Patients with comorbid opioid use disorder (OUD) and alcohol use disorder (AUD) often pose significant management challenges when they present in withdrawal. This article reviews the evidence and summarizes practical considerations regarding the clinical management of patients with comorbid OUD and AUD.

Related Resources

• Chaney L, Mathia C, Cole T. Transitioning patients with opioid use disorder from methadone to buprenorphine. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(12):23-24,28. doi:10.12788/ cp.0305
• Eatmon CV, Trent K. Pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder in patients with hepatic impairment. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(12):25-28. doi:10.12788/cp.0068

Drug Brand Names

Acamprosate • Campral
Buprenorphine/naloxone • Suboxone, Zubsolv
Clonidine • Catapres
Disulfiram • Antabuse
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Hydroxyzine • Vistaril
Lofexidine • Lucemyra
Methadone • Methadose, Dolophine
Naloxone • Narcan
Naltrexone • ReVia, Vivitrol
Ondansetron • Zofran
Topiramate • Topamax
Trazodone • Desyrel, Oleptro

In 2021, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ Suicide resulted in 49,000 US deaths during 2021; it was the second most common cause of death in individuals age 10 to 34, and the fifth leading cause among children.^1,2 Women are 3 to 4 times more likely than men to attempt suicide, but men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide.²

The evaluation of patients with suicidal ideation who have not made an attempt generally involves assessing 4 factors: the specific plan, access to lethal means, any recent social stressors, and the presence of a psychiatric disorder.³ The clinician should also assess which potential deterrents, such as religious beliefs or dependent children, might be present.

Mental health clinicians are often called upon to evaluate a patient after a suicide attempt to assess intent for continued self-harm and to determine appropriate disposition. Such an evaluation must consider multiple factors, including the method used, premeditation, consequences of the attempt, the presence of severe depression and/or psychosis, and the role of substance use. Assessment after a suicide attempt differs from the examination of individuals who harbor suicidal thoughts but have not made an attempt; the latter group may be more likely to respond to interventions such as intensive outpatient care, mobilization of family support, and religious proscriptions against suicide. However, for patients who make an attempt to end their life, whatever potential safeguards or deterrents to suicide that were in place obviously did not prevent the self-harm act. The consequences of the attempt, such as disabling injuries or medical complications, and possible involuntary commitment, need to be considered. Assessment of the patient’s feelings about having survived the attempt is important because the psychological impact of the attempt on family members may serve to intensify the patient’s depression and make a subsequent attempt more likely.

Many individuals who think of suicide have communicated self-harm thoughts or intentions, but such comments are often minimized or ignored. There is a common but erroneous belief that if patients are encouraged to discuss thoughts of self-harm, they will be more likely to act upon them. Because the opposite is true,⁴ clinicians should ask vulnerable patients about suicidal ideation or intent. Importantly, noncompliance with life-saving medical care, risk-taking behaviors, and substance use may also signal a desire for self-harm. Passive thoughts of death, typified by comments such as “I don’t care whether I wake up or not,” should also be elicited. Many patients who think of suicide speak of being in a “bad place” where reason and logic give way to an intense desire to end their misery.

The evaluation of a patient who has attempted suicide is an important component of providing psychiatric care. This article reflects our 45 years of evaluating such patients. As such, it reflects our clinical experience and is not evidence-based. We offer a checklist of 14 questions that we have found helpful when determining if it would be best for a patient to receive inpatient psychiatric hospitalization or a discharge referral for outpatient care (Table). Questions 1 through 6 are specific for patients who have made a suicide attempt, while questions 7 through 14 are helpful for assessing global risk factors for suicide.

1. Was the attempt premeditated?

Determining premeditation vs impulsivity is an essential element of the assessment following a suicide attempt. Many such acts may occur without forethought in response to an unexpected stressor, such as an altercation between partners or family conflicts. Impulsive attempts can occur when an individual is involved in a distressing event and/or while intoxicated. Conversely, premeditation involves forethought and planning, which may increase the risk of suicide in the near future.

Examples of premeditated behavior include:

• Contemplating the attempt days or weeks beforehand
• Researching the effects of a medication or combination of medications in terms of potential lethality
• Engaging in behavior that would decrease the likelihood of their body being discovered after the attempt
• Obtaining weapons and/or stockpiling pills
• Canvassing potential sites such as bridges or tall buildings
• Engaging in a suicide attempt “practice run”
• Leaving a suicide note or message on social media
• Making funeral arrangements, such as choosing burial clothing
• Writing a will and arranging for the custody of dependent children
• Purchasing life insurance that does not deny payment of benefits in cases of death by suicide.

Continue to: Patients with a premeditated...

Patients with a premeditated suicide attempt generally do not expect to survive and are often surprised or upset that the act was not fatal. The presence of indicators that the attempt was premeditated should direct the disposition more toward hospitalization than discharge. In assessing the impact of premeditation, it is important to gauge not just the examples listed above, but also the patient’s perception of these issues (such as potential loss of child custody). Consider how much the patient is emotionally affected by such thinking.

2. What were the consequences of the attempt?

Assessing the reason for the attempt (if any) and determining whether the inciting circumstance has changed due to the suicide attempt are an important part of the evaluation. A suicide attempt may result in reconciliation with and/or renewed support from family members or partners, who might not have been aware of the patient’s emotional distress. Such unexpected support often results in the patient exhibiting improved mood and affect, and possibly temporary resolution of suicidal thoughts. This “flight into health” may be short-lived, but it also may be enough to engage the patient in a therapeutic alliance. That may permit a discharge with safe disposition to the outpatient clinic while in the custody of a family member, partner, or close friend.

Alternatively, some people experience a troubling worsening of precipitants following a suicide attempt. Preexisting medical conditions and financial, occupational, and/or social woes may be exacerbated. Child custody determinations may be affected, assuming the patient understands the possibility of this adverse consequence. Violent methods may result in disfigurement and body image issues. Individuals from small, close-knit communities may experience stigmatization and unwanted notoriety because of their suicide attempt. Such negative consequences may render some patients more likely to make another attempt to die by suicide. It is crucial to consider how a suicide attempt may have changed the original stress that led to the attempt.

3. Which method was used?

Most fatal suicides in the US are by firearms, and many individuals who survive such attempts do so because of unfamiliarity with the weapon, gun malfunction, faulty aim, or alcohol use.^5-7 Some survivors report intending to shoot themselves in the heart, but instead suffered shoulder injuries. Unfortunately, for a patient who survives self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the sequelae of chronic pain, multiple surgical procedures, disability, and disfigurement may serve as constant negative reminders of the event. Some individuals with suicidal intent eschew the idea of using firearms because they hope to avoid having a family member be the first to discover them. Witnessing the aftermath of a fatal suicide by gunshot can induce symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in family members and/or partners.⁸

For a patient with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, always determine whether the weapon has been secured or if the patient still has access to it. Asking about weapon availability is essential during the evaluation of any patient with depression, major life crises, or other factors that may yield a desire to die; this is especially true for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Whenever readily available to such individuals, weapons need to be safely removed.

Continue to: Other self-harm methods...

Other self-harm methods with a high degree of lethality include jumping from bridges or buildings, poisonings, self-immolation, cutting, and hangings. Individuals who choose these approaches generally do not intend to survive. Many of these methods also entail premeditation, as in the case of individuals who canvass bridges and note time when traffic is light so they are less likely to be interrupted. Between 1937 and 2012, there were >1,600 deaths by suicide from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.⁹ Patients who choose highly lethal methods are often irritated during the postattempt evaluation because their plans were not fatal. Usually, patients who choose such potentially lethal methods are hospitalized initially on medical and surgical floors, and receive most of their psychiatric care from consultation psychiatrists. Following discharge, these patients may be at high risk for subsequent suicide attempts.

In the US, the most common method of attempting suicide is by overdose.⁴ Lethality is determined by the agent or combination of substances ingested, the amount taken, the person’s health status, and the length of time before they are discovered. Many patients mistakenly assume that readily available agents such as acetaminophen and aspirin are less likely to be fatal than prescription medications. Evaluators may want to assess for suicidality in individuals with erratic, risk-taking behaviors, who are at especially high risk for death. Learning about the method the patient used can help the clinician determine the imminent risk of another suicide attempt. The more potentially fatal the patient’s method, the more serious their suicide intent, and the higher the risk they will make another suicide attempt, possibly using an even more lethal method.

4. What was the intent?

“What did you want to happen when you made this attempt?” Many patients will respond that they wanted to die, sleep, not wake up, or did not care what happened. Others say it was a gesture to evoke a certain response from another person. If this is the case, it is important to know whether the desired outcome was achieved. These so-called gestures often involve making sure the intended person is aware of the attempt, often by writing a letter, sending a text, or posting on social media. Such behaviors may be exhibited by patients with personality disorders. While such attempts often are impulsive, if the attempt fails to generate the anticipated effect, the patient may try to gain more attention by escalating their suicide actions.

Conversely, if a spouse or partner reconciles with the patient solely because of a suicide attempt, this may set a pattern for future self-harm events in which the patient hopes to achieve the same outcome. Nevertheless, it is better to err for safety because some of these patients will make another attempt, just to prove that they should have been taken more seriously. An exploration of such intent can help the evaluation because even supposed “gestures” can have dangerous consequences. Acts that do not result in the desired outcome should precipitate hospitalization rather than discharge.

5. What facilitated the patient’s rescue?

“Why is this patient still alive?” Determine if the patient did anything to save themself, such as calling an ambulance, inducing emesis, telling someone what they did, or coming to the hospital on their own. If yes, asking them what changed their mind may provide information about what exists in their lives to potentially prevent future attempts, or about wishes to stay alive. These issues can be used to guide outpatient therapy.

Continue to: How does the patient feel about having survived?

When a patient is asked how they feel about having survived a suicide attempt, some will label their act “stupid” and profess embarrassment. Others exhibit future-oriented thought, which is a very good prognostic sign. More ominous is subsequent dysphoria or lamenting that “I could not even do this right.” Patients often express anger toward anyone who rescued them, especially those whose attempts were carefully planned or were discovered by accident. Some patients might also express ambivalence about having survived.

The patient’s response to this question may be shaped by their desire to avoid hospitalization, so beyond their verbal answers, be attentive to clinical cues that may suggest the patient is not being fully transparent. Anger or ambivalence about having survived, a lack of future-oriented thought, and a restricted affect despite verbalizing joy about still being alive are features that suggest psychiatric hospitalization may be warranted.

7. Has the patient made previous suicide attempts?

Compared to individuals with no previous suicide attempts, patients with a history of suicide attempts are 30 to 40 times more likely to die by suicide.² Many patients who present after a suicide attempt have tried to kill themselves multiple times. Exploring the number of past attempts, how recent the attempts were, and what dispositions were made can be of benefit. Reviewing the potential lethality of past attempts (eg, was hospitalization required, was the patient placed in an intensive care unit, and/or was intubation needed) is recommended. If outpatient care was suggested or medication prescribed, was the patient adherent? Consider asking about passive suicidal behavior, such as not seeking care for medical issues, discontinuing life-saving medication, or engaging in reckless behavior. While such behaviors may not have been classified as a suicide attempt, it might indicate a feeling of indifference toward staying alive. A patient with a past attempt, especially if recent, merits consideration for inpatient care. Once again, referring previously nonadherent patients to outpatient treatment is less likely to be effective.

8. Does the patient have a support network?

Before discharging a patient who has made a suicide attempt, consider the quality of their support network. Gauging the response of the family and friends to the patient’s attempt can be beneficial. Indifference or resentment on the part of loved ones is a bad sign. Some patients have access to support networks they either did not know were available or chose not to utilize. In other instances, after realizing how depressed the patient has been, the family might provide a new safety net. Strong religious affiliations can also be valuable because devout spirituality can be a deterrent to suicide behaviors.¹⁰ For an individual whose attempt was motivated by loneliness or feeling unloved or underappreciated, a newly realized support network can be an additional protective deterrent.

9. Does the patient have a family history of suicide?

There may be a familial component to suicide. Knowing about any suicide history in the family contributes to future therapeutic planning. The clinician may want to explore the patient’s family suicide history in detail because such information can have substantial impact on the patient’s motivation for attempting suicide. The evaluator may want to determine if the anniversary of a family suicide is coming. Triggers for a suicide attempt could include the anniversary of a death, birthdays, family-oriented holidays, and similar events. It is productive to understand how the patient feels about family members who have died by suicide. Some will empathize with the deceased, commenting that they did the “right thing.” Others, upon realizing how their own attempt affected others, will be remorseful and determined not to inflict more pain on their family. Such patients may need to be reminded of the misery associated with their family being left without them. These understandings are helpful at setting a safe disposition. However, a history of death by suicide in the family should always be thoroughly evaluated, regardless of the patient’s attitude about that death.

Continue to: Was the attempt the result of depression?

For a patient experiencing depressive symptoms, the prognosis is less positive; they are more likely to harbor serious intent, premeditation, hopelessness, and social isolation, and less likely to express future-oriented thought. They often exhibit a temporary “flight into health.” Such progress is often transitory and may not represent recovery. Because mood disorders may still be present despite a temporary improvement, inpatient and pharmacologic treatment may be needed. If a patient’s suicide attempt occurred as a result of severe depression, it is possible they will make another suicide attempt unless their depression is addressed in a safe and secure setting, such as inpatient hospitalization, or through close family observation while the patient is receiving intensive outpatient treatment.

11. Does the patient have a psychotic disorder?

Many patients with a psychotic illness die following their first attempt without ever having contact with a mental health professional.¹¹ Features of psychosis might include malevolent auditory hallucinations that suggest self-destruction.¹¹ Such “voices” can be intense and self-deprecating; many patients with this type of hallucination report having made a suicide attempt “just to make the voices stop.”

Symptoms of paranoia can make it less likely for individuals with psychosis to confide in family members, friends, or medical personnel. Religious elements are often of a delusional nature and can be dangerous. Psychosis is more difficult to hide than depression and the presence of psychoses concurrent with major depressive disorder (MDD) increases the probability of suicidality.¹¹ Psychosis secondary to substance use may diminish inhibitions and heighten impulsivity, thereby exacerbating the likelihood of self-harm. Usually, the presence of psychotic features precipitating or following a suicide attempt leads to psychiatric hospitalization.

12. Is the patient in a high-risk demographic group?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, it helps to consider not just what they did, but who they are. Specifically, does the individual belong to a demographic group that traditionally has a high rate of suicide? For example, patients who are Native American or Alaska Natives warrant extra caution.² Older White males, especially those who are divorced, widowed, retired, and/or have chronic health problems, are also at greater risk. Compared to the general population, individuals age >80 have a massively elevated chance for self-induced death.¹² Some of the reasons include:

• medical comorbidities make surviving an attempt less likely
• access to large amounts of medications
• more irreversible issues, such as chronic pain, disability, or widowhood
• living alone, which may delay discovery.

Patients who are members of any of these demographic groups may deserve serious consideration for inpatient psychiatric admission, regardless of other factors.

Continue to: Were drugs or alcohol involved?

This factor is unique in that it is both a chronic risk factor (SUDs) and a warning sign for imminent suicide, as in the case of an individual who gets intoxicated to disinhibit their fear of death so they can attempt suicide. Alcohol use disorders are associated with depression and suicide. Overdoses by fentanyl and other opiates have become more frequent.¹³ In many cases, fatalities are unintentional because users overestimate their tolerance or ingest contaminated substances.¹⁴ Disinhibition by alcohol and/or other drugs is a risk factor for attempting suicide and can intensify the depth of MDD. Some patients will ingest substances before an attempt just to give them the courage to act; many think of suicide only when intoxicated. Toxicology screens are indicated as part of the evaluation after a suicide attempt.

Depressive and suicidal thoughts often occur in people “coming down” from cocaine or other stimulants. These circumstances require determining whether to refer the patient for treatment for an SUD or psychiatric hospitalization.

In summary, getting intoxicated solely to diminish anxiety about suicide is a dangerous feature, whereas attempting suicide due to intoxication is less concerning. The latter patient may not consider suicide unless they become intoxicated again. When available, dual diagnosis treatment facilities can be an appropriate referral for such patients. Emergency department holding beds can allow these individuals to detoxify prior to the evaluation.

14. Does the patient have future-oriented thoughts?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, the presence of future planning and anticipation can be reassuring, but these features should be carefully assessed.^14-16

After-the-fact comments may be more reliable when a patient offers them spontaneously, as opposed to in response to direct questioning.^15-17 An inability to produce future-oriented thoughts is linked to long-term suicide risks.^15-17 Patients may fabricate future plans as a way to avoid psychiatric hospitalization, so be wary of plans that are generalized, less detailed, and only mentioned when an inpatient disposition is proposed. A patient may in fact have been dreading events they now profess to be eagerly awaiting. Corroboration from family members can be helpful in determining how involved the patient has been in preparing for future events. More concerning are patients without future plans or who exhibit anhedonia regarding upcoming events that previously were of interest. When assessing for future-oriented thoughts, consider:

• the specificity of the future plans
• corroboration from the family and others about the patient’s previous investment in the upcoming event
• whether the patient mentions such plans spontaneously or only in response to direct questioning
• the patient’s emotional expression or affect when discussing their future
• whether such plans are reasonable, grandiose, and/or unrealistic.

Bottom Line

When assessing a patient after a suicide attempt, both the patient’s presentation and history and the clinician’s instincts are important. Careful consideration of the method, stated intent, premeditation vs impulsivity, feelings about having survived, presence of psychiatric illness, high-risk demographic, postattempt demeanor and affect, quality of support, presence of self-rescue behaviors, future-oriented thoughts, and other factors can help in making the appropriate disposition.

Related Resources

• Kim H, Kim Y, Shin MH, et al. Early psychiatric referral after attempted suicide helps prevent suicide reattempts: a longitudinal national cohort study in South Korea. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:607892. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.607892
• Michaud L, Berva S, Ostertag L, et al. When to discharge and when to voluntary or compulsory hospitalize? Factors associated with treatment decision after self-harm. Psychiatry Res. 2022;317:114810. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114810

In 2021, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ Suicide resulted in 49,000 US deaths during 2021; it was the second most common cause of death in individuals age 10 to 34, and the fifth leading cause among children.^1,2 Women are 3 to 4 times more likely than men to attempt suicide, but men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide.²

The evaluation of patients with suicidal ideation who have not made an attempt generally involves assessing 4 factors: the specific plan, access to lethal means, any recent social stressors, and the presence of a psychiatric disorder.³ The clinician should also assess which potential deterrents, such as religious beliefs or dependent children, might be present.

Mental health clinicians are often called upon to evaluate a patient after a suicide attempt to assess intent for continued self-harm and to determine appropriate disposition. Such an evaluation must consider multiple factors, including the method used, premeditation, consequences of the attempt, the presence of severe depression and/or psychosis, and the role of substance use. Assessment after a suicide attempt differs from the examination of individuals who harbor suicidal thoughts but have not made an attempt; the latter group may be more likely to respond to interventions such as intensive outpatient care, mobilization of family support, and religious proscriptions against suicide. However, for patients who make an attempt to end their life, whatever potential safeguards or deterrents to suicide that were in place obviously did not prevent the self-harm act. The consequences of the attempt, such as disabling injuries or medical complications, and possible involuntary commitment, need to be considered. Assessment of the patient’s feelings about having survived the attempt is important because the psychological impact of the attempt on family members may serve to intensify the patient’s depression and make a subsequent attempt more likely.

Many individuals who think of suicide have communicated self-harm thoughts or intentions, but such comments are often minimized or ignored. There is a common but erroneous belief that if patients are encouraged to discuss thoughts of self-harm, they will be more likely to act upon them. Because the opposite is true,⁴ clinicians should ask vulnerable patients about suicidal ideation or intent. Importantly, noncompliance with life-saving medical care, risk-taking behaviors, and substance use may also signal a desire for self-harm. Passive thoughts of death, typified by comments such as “I don’t care whether I wake up or not,” should also be elicited. Many patients who think of suicide speak of being in a “bad place” where reason and logic give way to an intense desire to end their misery.

The evaluation of a patient who has attempted suicide is an important component of providing psychiatric care. This article reflects our 45 years of evaluating such patients. As such, it reflects our clinical experience and is not evidence-based. We offer a checklist of 14 questions that we have found helpful when determining if it would be best for a patient to receive inpatient psychiatric hospitalization or a discharge referral for outpatient care (Table). Questions 1 through 6 are specific for patients who have made a suicide attempt, while questions 7 through 14 are helpful for assessing global risk factors for suicide.

1. Was the attempt premeditated?

Determining premeditation vs impulsivity is an essential element of the assessment following a suicide attempt. Many such acts may occur without forethought in response to an unexpected stressor, such as an altercation between partners or family conflicts. Impulsive attempts can occur when an individual is involved in a distressing event and/or while intoxicated. Conversely, premeditation involves forethought and planning, which may increase the risk of suicide in the near future.

Examples of premeditated behavior include:

• Contemplating the attempt days or weeks beforehand
• Researching the effects of a medication or combination of medications in terms of potential lethality
• Engaging in behavior that would decrease the likelihood of their body being discovered after the attempt
• Obtaining weapons and/or stockpiling pills
• Canvassing potential sites such as bridges or tall buildings
• Engaging in a suicide attempt “practice run”
• Leaving a suicide note or message on social media
• Making funeral arrangements, such as choosing burial clothing
• Writing a will and arranging for the custody of dependent children
• Purchasing life insurance that does not deny payment of benefits in cases of death by suicide.

Continue to: Patients with a premeditated...

Patients with a premeditated suicide attempt generally do not expect to survive and are often surprised or upset that the act was not fatal. The presence of indicators that the attempt was premeditated should direct the disposition more toward hospitalization than discharge. In assessing the impact of premeditation, it is important to gauge not just the examples listed above, but also the patient’s perception of these issues (such as potential loss of child custody). Consider how much the patient is emotionally affected by such thinking.

2. What were the consequences of the attempt?

Assessing the reason for the attempt (if any) and determining whether the inciting circumstance has changed due to the suicide attempt are an important part of the evaluation. A suicide attempt may result in reconciliation with and/or renewed support from family members or partners, who might not have been aware of the patient’s emotional distress. Such unexpected support often results in the patient exhibiting improved mood and affect, and possibly temporary resolution of suicidal thoughts. This “flight into health” may be short-lived, but it also may be enough to engage the patient in a therapeutic alliance. That may permit a discharge with safe disposition to the outpatient clinic while in the custody of a family member, partner, or close friend.

Alternatively, some people experience a troubling worsening of precipitants following a suicide attempt. Preexisting medical conditions and financial, occupational, and/or social woes may be exacerbated. Child custody determinations may be affected, assuming the patient understands the possibility of this adverse consequence. Violent methods may result in disfigurement and body image issues. Individuals from small, close-knit communities may experience stigmatization and unwanted notoriety because of their suicide attempt. Such negative consequences may render some patients more likely to make another attempt to die by suicide. It is crucial to consider how a suicide attempt may have changed the original stress that led to the attempt.

3. Which method was used?

Most fatal suicides in the US are by firearms, and many individuals who survive such attempts do so because of unfamiliarity with the weapon, gun malfunction, faulty aim, or alcohol use.^5-7 Some survivors report intending to shoot themselves in the heart, but instead suffered shoulder injuries. Unfortunately, for a patient who survives self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the sequelae of chronic pain, multiple surgical procedures, disability, and disfigurement may serve as constant negative reminders of the event. Some individuals with suicidal intent eschew the idea of using firearms because they hope to avoid having a family member be the first to discover them. Witnessing the aftermath of a fatal suicide by gunshot can induce symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in family members and/or partners.⁸

For a patient with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, always determine whether the weapon has been secured or if the patient still has access to it. Asking about weapon availability is essential during the evaluation of any patient with depression, major life crises, or other factors that may yield a desire to die; this is especially true for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Whenever readily available to such individuals, weapons need to be safely removed.

Continue to: Other self-harm methods...

Other self-harm methods with a high degree of lethality include jumping from bridges or buildings, poisonings, self-immolation, cutting, and hangings. Individuals who choose these approaches generally do not intend to survive. Many of these methods also entail premeditation, as in the case of individuals who canvass bridges and note time when traffic is light so they are less likely to be interrupted. Between 1937 and 2012, there were >1,600 deaths by suicide from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.⁹ Patients who choose highly lethal methods are often irritated during the postattempt evaluation because their plans were not fatal. Usually, patients who choose such potentially lethal methods are hospitalized initially on medical and surgical floors, and receive most of their psychiatric care from consultation psychiatrists. Following discharge, these patients may be at high risk for subsequent suicide attempts.

In the US, the most common method of attempting suicide is by overdose.⁴ Lethality is determined by the agent or combination of substances ingested, the amount taken, the person’s health status, and the length of time before they are discovered. Many patients mistakenly assume that readily available agents such as acetaminophen and aspirin are less likely to be fatal than prescription medications. Evaluators may want to assess for suicidality in individuals with erratic, risk-taking behaviors, who are at especially high risk for death. Learning about the method the patient used can help the clinician determine the imminent risk of another suicide attempt. The more potentially fatal the patient’s method, the more serious their suicide intent, and the higher the risk they will make another suicide attempt, possibly using an even more lethal method.

4. What was the intent?

“What did you want to happen when you made this attempt?” Many patients will respond that they wanted to die, sleep, not wake up, or did not care what happened. Others say it was a gesture to evoke a certain response from another person. If this is the case, it is important to know whether the desired outcome was achieved. These so-called gestures often involve making sure the intended person is aware of the attempt, often by writing a letter, sending a text, or posting on social media. Such behaviors may be exhibited by patients with personality disorders. While such attempts often are impulsive, if the attempt fails to generate the anticipated effect, the patient may try to gain more attention by escalating their suicide actions.

Conversely, if a spouse or partner reconciles with the patient solely because of a suicide attempt, this may set a pattern for future self-harm events in which the patient hopes to achieve the same outcome. Nevertheless, it is better to err for safety because some of these patients will make another attempt, just to prove that they should have been taken more seriously. An exploration of such intent can help the evaluation because even supposed “gestures” can have dangerous consequences. Acts that do not result in the desired outcome should precipitate hospitalization rather than discharge.

5. What facilitated the patient’s rescue?

“Why is this patient still alive?” Determine if the patient did anything to save themself, such as calling an ambulance, inducing emesis, telling someone what they did, or coming to the hospital on their own. If yes, asking them what changed their mind may provide information about what exists in their lives to potentially prevent future attempts, or about wishes to stay alive. These issues can be used to guide outpatient therapy.

Continue to: How does the patient feel about having survived?

When a patient is asked how they feel about having survived a suicide attempt, some will label their act “stupid” and profess embarrassment. Others exhibit future-oriented thought, which is a very good prognostic sign. More ominous is subsequent dysphoria or lamenting that “I could not even do this right.” Patients often express anger toward anyone who rescued them, especially those whose attempts were carefully planned or were discovered by accident. Some patients might also express ambivalence about having survived.

The patient’s response to this question may be shaped by their desire to avoid hospitalization, so beyond their verbal answers, be attentive to clinical cues that may suggest the patient is not being fully transparent. Anger or ambivalence about having survived, a lack of future-oriented thought, and a restricted affect despite verbalizing joy about still being alive are features that suggest psychiatric hospitalization may be warranted.

7. Has the patient made previous suicide attempts?

Compared to individuals with no previous suicide attempts, patients with a history of suicide attempts are 30 to 40 times more likely to die by suicide.² Many patients who present after a suicide attempt have tried to kill themselves multiple times. Exploring the number of past attempts, how recent the attempts were, and what dispositions were made can be of benefit. Reviewing the potential lethality of past attempts (eg, was hospitalization required, was the patient placed in an intensive care unit, and/or was intubation needed) is recommended. If outpatient care was suggested or medication prescribed, was the patient adherent? Consider asking about passive suicidal behavior, such as not seeking care for medical issues, discontinuing life-saving medication, or engaging in reckless behavior. While such behaviors may not have been classified as a suicide attempt, it might indicate a feeling of indifference toward staying alive. A patient with a past attempt, especially if recent, merits consideration for inpatient care. Once again, referring previously nonadherent patients to outpatient treatment is less likely to be effective.

8. Does the patient have a support network?

Before discharging a patient who has made a suicide attempt, consider the quality of their support network. Gauging the response of the family and friends to the patient’s attempt can be beneficial. Indifference or resentment on the part of loved ones is a bad sign. Some patients have access to support networks they either did not know were available or chose not to utilize. In other instances, after realizing how depressed the patient has been, the family might provide a new safety net. Strong religious affiliations can also be valuable because devout spirituality can be a deterrent to suicide behaviors.¹⁰ For an individual whose attempt was motivated by loneliness or feeling unloved or underappreciated, a newly realized support network can be an additional protective deterrent.

9. Does the patient have a family history of suicide?

There may be a familial component to suicide. Knowing about any suicide history in the family contributes to future therapeutic planning. The clinician may want to explore the patient’s family suicide history in detail because such information can have substantial impact on the patient’s motivation for attempting suicide. The evaluator may want to determine if the anniversary of a family suicide is coming. Triggers for a suicide attempt could include the anniversary of a death, birthdays, family-oriented holidays, and similar events. It is productive to understand how the patient feels about family members who have died by suicide. Some will empathize with the deceased, commenting that they did the “right thing.” Others, upon realizing how their own attempt affected others, will be remorseful and determined not to inflict more pain on their family. Such patients may need to be reminded of the misery associated with their family being left without them. These understandings are helpful at setting a safe disposition. However, a history of death by suicide in the family should always be thoroughly evaluated, regardless of the patient’s attitude about that death.

Continue to: Was the attempt the result of depression?

For a patient experiencing depressive symptoms, the prognosis is less positive; they are more likely to harbor serious intent, premeditation, hopelessness, and social isolation, and less likely to express future-oriented thought. They often exhibit a temporary “flight into health.” Such progress is often transitory and may not represent recovery. Because mood disorders may still be present despite a temporary improvement, inpatient and pharmacologic treatment may be needed. If a patient’s suicide attempt occurred as a result of severe depression, it is possible they will make another suicide attempt unless their depression is addressed in a safe and secure setting, such as inpatient hospitalization, or through close family observation while the patient is receiving intensive outpatient treatment.

11. Does the patient have a psychotic disorder?

Many patients with a psychotic illness die following their first attempt without ever having contact with a mental health professional.¹¹ Features of psychosis might include malevolent auditory hallucinations that suggest self-destruction.¹¹ Such “voices” can be intense and self-deprecating; many patients with this type of hallucination report having made a suicide attempt “just to make the voices stop.”

Symptoms of paranoia can make it less likely for individuals with psychosis to confide in family members, friends, or medical personnel. Religious elements are often of a delusional nature and can be dangerous. Psychosis is more difficult to hide than depression and the presence of psychoses concurrent with major depressive disorder (MDD) increases the probability of suicidality.¹¹ Psychosis secondary to substance use may diminish inhibitions and heighten impulsivity, thereby exacerbating the likelihood of self-harm. Usually, the presence of psychotic features precipitating or following a suicide attempt leads to psychiatric hospitalization.

12. Is the patient in a high-risk demographic group?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, it helps to consider not just what they did, but who they are. Specifically, does the individual belong to a demographic group that traditionally has a high rate of suicide? For example, patients who are Native American or Alaska Natives warrant extra caution.² Older White males, especially those who are divorced, widowed, retired, and/or have chronic health problems, are also at greater risk. Compared to the general population, individuals age >80 have a massively elevated chance for self-induced death.¹² Some of the reasons include:

• medical comorbidities make surviving an attempt less likely
• access to large amounts of medications
• more irreversible issues, such as chronic pain, disability, or widowhood
• living alone, which may delay discovery.

Patients who are members of any of these demographic groups may deserve serious consideration for inpatient psychiatric admission, regardless of other factors.

Continue to: Were drugs or alcohol involved?

This factor is unique in that it is both a chronic risk factor (SUDs) and a warning sign for imminent suicide, as in the case of an individual who gets intoxicated to disinhibit their fear of death so they can attempt suicide. Alcohol use disorders are associated with depression and suicide. Overdoses by fentanyl and other opiates have become more frequent.¹³ In many cases, fatalities are unintentional because users overestimate their tolerance or ingest contaminated substances.¹⁴ Disinhibition by alcohol and/or other drugs is a risk factor for attempting suicide and can intensify the depth of MDD. Some patients will ingest substances before an attempt just to give them the courage to act; many think of suicide only when intoxicated. Toxicology screens are indicated as part of the evaluation after a suicide attempt.

Depressive and suicidal thoughts often occur in people “coming down” from cocaine or other stimulants. These circumstances require determining whether to refer the patient for treatment for an SUD or psychiatric hospitalization.

In summary, getting intoxicated solely to diminish anxiety about suicide is a dangerous feature, whereas attempting suicide due to intoxication is less concerning. The latter patient may not consider suicide unless they become intoxicated again. When available, dual diagnosis treatment facilities can be an appropriate referral for such patients. Emergency department holding beds can allow these individuals to detoxify prior to the evaluation.

14. Does the patient have future-oriented thoughts?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, the presence of future planning and anticipation can be reassuring, but these features should be carefully assessed.^14-16

After-the-fact comments may be more reliable when a patient offers them spontaneously, as opposed to in response to direct questioning.^15-17 An inability to produce future-oriented thoughts is linked to long-term suicide risks.^15-17 Patients may fabricate future plans as a way to avoid psychiatric hospitalization, so be wary of plans that are generalized, less detailed, and only mentioned when an inpatient disposition is proposed. A patient may in fact have been dreading events they now profess to be eagerly awaiting. Corroboration from family members can be helpful in determining how involved the patient has been in preparing for future events. More concerning are patients without future plans or who exhibit anhedonia regarding upcoming events that previously were of interest. When assessing for future-oriented thoughts, consider:

• the specificity of the future plans
• corroboration from the family and others about the patient’s previous investment in the upcoming event
• whether the patient mentions such plans spontaneously or only in response to direct questioning
• the patient’s emotional expression or affect when discussing their future
• whether such plans are reasonable, grandiose, and/or unrealistic.

Bottom Line

When assessing a patient after a suicide attempt, both the patient’s presentation and history and the clinician’s instincts are important. Careful consideration of the method, stated intent, premeditation vs impulsivity, feelings about having survived, presence of psychiatric illness, high-risk demographic, postattempt demeanor and affect, quality of support, presence of self-rescue behaviors, future-oriented thoughts, and other factors can help in making the appropriate disposition.

Related Resources

• Kim H, Kim Y, Shin MH, et al. Early psychiatric referral after attempted suicide helps prevent suicide reattempts: a longitudinal national cohort study in South Korea. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:607892. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.607892
• Michaud L, Berva S, Ostertag L, et al. When to discharge and when to voluntary or compulsory hospitalize? Factors associated with treatment decision after self-harm. Psychiatry Res. 2022;317:114810. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114810

In 2021, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ Suicide resulted in 49,000 US deaths during 2021; it was the second most common cause of death in individuals age 10 to 34, and the fifth leading cause among children.^1,2 Women are 3 to 4 times more likely than men to attempt suicide, but men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide.²

The evaluation of patients with suicidal ideation who have not made an attempt generally involves assessing 4 factors: the specific plan, access to lethal means, any recent social stressors, and the presence of a psychiatric disorder.³ The clinician should also assess which potential deterrents, such as religious beliefs or dependent children, might be present.

Mental health clinicians are often called upon to evaluate a patient after a suicide attempt to assess intent for continued self-harm and to determine appropriate disposition. Such an evaluation must consider multiple factors, including the method used, premeditation, consequences of the attempt, the presence of severe depression and/or psychosis, and the role of substance use. Assessment after a suicide attempt differs from the examination of individuals who harbor suicidal thoughts but have not made an attempt; the latter group may be more likely to respond to interventions such as intensive outpatient care, mobilization of family support, and religious proscriptions against suicide. However, for patients who make an attempt to end their life, whatever potential safeguards or deterrents to suicide that were in place obviously did not prevent the self-harm act. The consequences of the attempt, such as disabling injuries or medical complications, and possible involuntary commitment, need to be considered. Assessment of the patient’s feelings about having survived the attempt is important because the psychological impact of the attempt on family members may serve to intensify the patient’s depression and make a subsequent attempt more likely.

Many individuals who think of suicide have communicated self-harm thoughts or intentions, but such comments are often minimized or ignored. There is a common but erroneous belief that if patients are encouraged to discuss thoughts of self-harm, they will be more likely to act upon them. Because the opposite is true,⁴ clinicians should ask vulnerable patients about suicidal ideation or intent. Importantly, noncompliance with life-saving medical care, risk-taking behaviors, and substance use may also signal a desire for self-harm. Passive thoughts of death, typified by comments such as “I don’t care whether I wake up or not,” should also be elicited. Many patients who think of suicide speak of being in a “bad place” where reason and logic give way to an intense desire to end their misery.

The evaluation of a patient who has attempted suicide is an important component of providing psychiatric care. This article reflects our 45 years of evaluating such patients. As such, it reflects our clinical experience and is not evidence-based. We offer a checklist of 14 questions that we have found helpful when determining if it would be best for a patient to receive inpatient psychiatric hospitalization or a discharge referral for outpatient care (Table). Questions 1 through 6 are specific for patients who have made a suicide attempt, while questions 7 through 14 are helpful for assessing global risk factors for suicide.

1. Was the attempt premeditated?

Determining premeditation vs impulsivity is an essential element of the assessment following a suicide attempt. Many such acts may occur without forethought in response to an unexpected stressor, such as an altercation between partners or family conflicts. Impulsive attempts can occur when an individual is involved in a distressing event and/or while intoxicated. Conversely, premeditation involves forethought and planning, which may increase the risk of suicide in the near future.

Examples of premeditated behavior include:

• Contemplating the attempt days or weeks beforehand
• Researching the effects of a medication or combination of medications in terms of potential lethality
• Engaging in behavior that would decrease the likelihood of their body being discovered after the attempt
• Obtaining weapons and/or stockpiling pills
• Canvassing potential sites such as bridges or tall buildings
• Engaging in a suicide attempt “practice run”
• Leaving a suicide note or message on social media
• Making funeral arrangements, such as choosing burial clothing
• Writing a will and arranging for the custody of dependent children
• Purchasing life insurance that does not deny payment of benefits in cases of death by suicide.

Continue to: Patients with a premeditated...

Patients with a premeditated suicide attempt generally do not expect to survive and are often surprised or upset that the act was not fatal. The presence of indicators that the attempt was premeditated should direct the disposition more toward hospitalization than discharge. In assessing the impact of premeditation, it is important to gauge not just the examples listed above, but also the patient’s perception of these issues (such as potential loss of child custody). Consider how much the patient is emotionally affected by such thinking.

2. What were the consequences of the attempt?

Assessing the reason for the attempt (if any) and determining whether the inciting circumstance has changed due to the suicide attempt are an important part of the evaluation. A suicide attempt may result in reconciliation with and/or renewed support from family members or partners, who might not have been aware of the patient’s emotional distress. Such unexpected support often results in the patient exhibiting improved mood and affect, and possibly temporary resolution of suicidal thoughts. This “flight into health” may be short-lived, but it also may be enough to engage the patient in a therapeutic alliance. That may permit a discharge with safe disposition to the outpatient clinic while in the custody of a family member, partner, or close friend.

Alternatively, some people experience a troubling worsening of precipitants following a suicide attempt. Preexisting medical conditions and financial, occupational, and/or social woes may be exacerbated. Child custody determinations may be affected, assuming the patient understands the possibility of this adverse consequence. Violent methods may result in disfigurement and body image issues. Individuals from small, close-knit communities may experience stigmatization and unwanted notoriety because of their suicide attempt. Such negative consequences may render some patients more likely to make another attempt to die by suicide. It is crucial to consider how a suicide attempt may have changed the original stress that led to the attempt.

3. Which method was used?

Most fatal suicides in the US are by firearms, and many individuals who survive such attempts do so because of unfamiliarity with the weapon, gun malfunction, faulty aim, or alcohol use.^5-7 Some survivors report intending to shoot themselves in the heart, but instead suffered shoulder injuries. Unfortunately, for a patient who survives self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the sequelae of chronic pain, multiple surgical procedures, disability, and disfigurement may serve as constant negative reminders of the event. Some individuals with suicidal intent eschew the idea of using firearms because they hope to avoid having a family member be the first to discover them. Witnessing the aftermath of a fatal suicide by gunshot can induce symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in family members and/or partners.⁸

For a patient with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, always determine whether the weapon has been secured or if the patient still has access to it. Asking about weapon availability is essential during the evaluation of any patient with depression, major life crises, or other factors that may yield a desire to die; this is especially true for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Whenever readily available to such individuals, weapons need to be safely removed.

Continue to: Other self-harm methods...

Other self-harm methods with a high degree of lethality include jumping from bridges or buildings, poisonings, self-immolation, cutting, and hangings. Individuals who choose these approaches generally do not intend to survive. Many of these methods also entail premeditation, as in the case of individuals who canvass bridges and note time when traffic is light so they are less likely to be interrupted. Between 1937 and 2012, there were >1,600 deaths by suicide from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.⁹ Patients who choose highly lethal methods are often irritated during the postattempt evaluation because their plans were not fatal. Usually, patients who choose such potentially lethal methods are hospitalized initially on medical and surgical floors, and receive most of their psychiatric care from consultation psychiatrists. Following discharge, these patients may be at high risk for subsequent suicide attempts.

In the US, the most common method of attempting suicide is by overdose.⁴ Lethality is determined by the agent or combination of substances ingested, the amount taken, the person’s health status, and the length of time before they are discovered. Many patients mistakenly assume that readily available agents such as acetaminophen and aspirin are less likely to be fatal than prescription medications. Evaluators may want to assess for suicidality in individuals with erratic, risk-taking behaviors, who are at especially high risk for death. Learning about the method the patient used can help the clinician determine the imminent risk of another suicide attempt. The more potentially fatal the patient’s method, the more serious their suicide intent, and the higher the risk they will make another suicide attempt, possibly using an even more lethal method.

4. What was the intent?

“What did you want to happen when you made this attempt?” Many patients will respond that they wanted to die, sleep, not wake up, or did not care what happened. Others say it was a gesture to evoke a certain response from another person. If this is the case, it is important to know whether the desired outcome was achieved. These so-called gestures often involve making sure the intended person is aware of the attempt, often by writing a letter, sending a text, or posting on social media. Such behaviors may be exhibited by patients with personality disorders. While such attempts often are impulsive, if the attempt fails to generate the anticipated effect, the patient may try to gain more attention by escalating their suicide actions.

Conversely, if a spouse or partner reconciles with the patient solely because of a suicide attempt, this may set a pattern for future self-harm events in which the patient hopes to achieve the same outcome. Nevertheless, it is better to err for safety because some of these patients will make another attempt, just to prove that they should have been taken more seriously. An exploration of such intent can help the evaluation because even supposed “gestures” can have dangerous consequences. Acts that do not result in the desired outcome should precipitate hospitalization rather than discharge.

5. What facilitated the patient’s rescue?

“Why is this patient still alive?” Determine if the patient did anything to save themself, such as calling an ambulance, inducing emesis, telling someone what they did, or coming to the hospital on their own. If yes, asking them what changed their mind may provide information about what exists in their lives to potentially prevent future attempts, or about wishes to stay alive. These issues can be used to guide outpatient therapy.

Continue to: How does the patient feel about having survived?

When a patient is asked how they feel about having survived a suicide attempt, some will label their act “stupid” and profess embarrassment. Others exhibit future-oriented thought, which is a very good prognostic sign. More ominous is subsequent dysphoria or lamenting that “I could not even do this right.” Patients often express anger toward anyone who rescued them, especially those whose attempts were carefully planned or were discovered by accident. Some patients might also express ambivalence about having survived.

The patient’s response to this question may be shaped by their desire to avoid hospitalization, so beyond their verbal answers, be attentive to clinical cues that may suggest the patient is not being fully transparent. Anger or ambivalence about having survived, a lack of future-oriented thought, and a restricted affect despite verbalizing joy about still being alive are features that suggest psychiatric hospitalization may be warranted.

7. Has the patient made previous suicide attempts?

Compared to individuals with no previous suicide attempts, patients with a history of suicide attempts are 30 to 40 times more likely to die by suicide.² Many patients who present after a suicide attempt have tried to kill themselves multiple times. Exploring the number of past attempts, how recent the attempts were, and what dispositions were made can be of benefit. Reviewing the potential lethality of past attempts (eg, was hospitalization required, was the patient placed in an intensive care unit, and/or was intubation needed) is recommended. If outpatient care was suggested or medication prescribed, was the patient adherent? Consider asking about passive suicidal behavior, such as not seeking care for medical issues, discontinuing life-saving medication, or engaging in reckless behavior. While such behaviors may not have been classified as a suicide attempt, it might indicate a feeling of indifference toward staying alive. A patient with a past attempt, especially if recent, merits consideration for inpatient care. Once again, referring previously nonadherent patients to outpatient treatment is less likely to be effective.

8. Does the patient have a support network?

Before discharging a patient who has made a suicide attempt, consider the quality of their support network. Gauging the response of the family and friends to the patient’s attempt can be beneficial. Indifference or resentment on the part of loved ones is a bad sign. Some patients have access to support networks they either did not know were available or chose not to utilize. In other instances, after realizing how depressed the patient has been, the family might provide a new safety net. Strong religious affiliations can also be valuable because devout spirituality can be a deterrent to suicide behaviors.¹⁰ For an individual whose attempt was motivated by loneliness or feeling unloved or underappreciated, a newly realized support network can be an additional protective deterrent.

9. Does the patient have a family history of suicide?

There may be a familial component to suicide. Knowing about any suicide history in the family contributes to future therapeutic planning. The clinician may want to explore the patient’s family suicide history in detail because such information can have substantial impact on the patient’s motivation for attempting suicide. The evaluator may want to determine if the anniversary of a family suicide is coming. Triggers for a suicide attempt could include the anniversary of a death, birthdays, family-oriented holidays, and similar events. It is productive to understand how the patient feels about family members who have died by suicide. Some will empathize with the deceased, commenting that they did the “right thing.” Others, upon realizing how their own attempt affected others, will be remorseful and determined not to inflict more pain on their family. Such patients may need to be reminded of the misery associated with their family being left without them. These understandings are helpful at setting a safe disposition. However, a history of death by suicide in the family should always be thoroughly evaluated, regardless of the patient’s attitude about that death.

Continue to: Was the attempt the result of depression?

For a patient experiencing depressive symptoms, the prognosis is less positive; they are more likely to harbor serious intent, premeditation, hopelessness, and social isolation, and less likely to express future-oriented thought. They often exhibit a temporary “flight into health.” Such progress is often transitory and may not represent recovery. Because mood disorders may still be present despite a temporary improvement, inpatient and pharmacologic treatment may be needed. If a patient’s suicide attempt occurred as a result of severe depression, it is possible they will make another suicide attempt unless their depression is addressed in a safe and secure setting, such as inpatient hospitalization, or through close family observation while the patient is receiving intensive outpatient treatment.

11. Does the patient have a psychotic disorder?

Many patients with a psychotic illness die following their first attempt without ever having contact with a mental health professional.¹¹ Features of psychosis might include malevolent auditory hallucinations that suggest self-destruction.¹¹ Such “voices” can be intense and self-deprecating; many patients with this type of hallucination report having made a suicide attempt “just to make the voices stop.”

Symptoms of paranoia can make it less likely for individuals with psychosis to confide in family members, friends, or medical personnel. Religious elements are often of a delusional nature and can be dangerous. Psychosis is more difficult to hide than depression and the presence of psychoses concurrent with major depressive disorder (MDD) increases the probability of suicidality.¹¹ Psychosis secondary to substance use may diminish inhibitions and heighten impulsivity, thereby exacerbating the likelihood of self-harm. Usually, the presence of psychotic features precipitating or following a suicide attempt leads to psychiatric hospitalization.

12. Is the patient in a high-risk demographic group?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, it helps to consider not just what they did, but who they are. Specifically, does the individual belong to a demographic group that traditionally has a high rate of suicide? For example, patients who are Native American or Alaska Natives warrant extra caution.² Older White males, especially those who are divorced, widowed, retired, and/or have chronic health problems, are also at greater risk. Compared to the general population, individuals age >80 have a massively elevated chance for self-induced death.¹² Some of the reasons include:

• medical comorbidities make surviving an attempt less likely
• access to large amounts of medications
• more irreversible issues, such as chronic pain, disability, or widowhood
• living alone, which may delay discovery.

Patients who are members of any of these demographic groups may deserve serious consideration for inpatient psychiatric admission, regardless of other factors.

Continue to: Were drugs or alcohol involved?

This factor is unique in that it is both a chronic risk factor (SUDs) and a warning sign for imminent suicide, as in the case of an individual who gets intoxicated to disinhibit their fear of death so they can attempt suicide. Alcohol use disorders are associated with depression and suicide. Overdoses by fentanyl and other opiates have become more frequent.¹³ In many cases, fatalities are unintentional because users overestimate their tolerance or ingest contaminated substances.¹⁴ Disinhibition by alcohol and/or other drugs is a risk factor for attempting suicide and can intensify the depth of MDD. Some patients will ingest substances before an attempt just to give them the courage to act; many think of suicide only when intoxicated. Toxicology screens are indicated as part of the evaluation after a suicide attempt.

Depressive and suicidal thoughts often occur in people “coming down” from cocaine or other stimulants. These circumstances require determining whether to refer the patient for treatment for an SUD or psychiatric hospitalization.

In summary, getting intoxicated solely to diminish anxiety about suicide is a dangerous feature, whereas attempting suicide due to intoxication is less concerning. The latter patient may not consider suicide unless they become intoxicated again. When available, dual diagnosis treatment facilities can be an appropriate referral for such patients. Emergency department holding beds can allow these individuals to detoxify prior to the evaluation.

14. Does the patient have future-oriented thoughts?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, the presence of future planning and anticipation can be reassuring, but these features should be carefully assessed.^14-16

After-the-fact comments may be more reliable when a patient offers them spontaneously, as opposed to in response to direct questioning.^15-17 An inability to produce future-oriented thoughts is linked to long-term suicide risks.^15-17 Patients may fabricate future plans as a way to avoid psychiatric hospitalization, so be wary of plans that are generalized, less detailed, and only mentioned when an inpatient disposition is proposed. A patient may in fact have been dreading events they now profess to be eagerly awaiting. Corroboration from family members can be helpful in determining how involved the patient has been in preparing for future events. More concerning are patients without future plans or who exhibit anhedonia regarding upcoming events that previously were of interest. When assessing for future-oriented thoughts, consider:

• the specificity of the future plans
• corroboration from the family and others about the patient’s previous investment in the upcoming event
• whether the patient mentions such plans spontaneously or only in response to direct questioning
• the patient’s emotional expression or affect when discussing their future
• whether such plans are reasonable, grandiose, and/or unrealistic.

Bottom Line

When assessing a patient after a suicide attempt, both the patient’s presentation and history and the clinician’s instincts are important. Careful consideration of the method, stated intent, premeditation vs impulsivity, feelings about having survived, presence of psychiatric illness, high-risk demographic, postattempt demeanor and affect, quality of support, presence of self-rescue behaviors, future-oriented thoughts, and other factors can help in making the appropriate disposition.

Related Resources

• Kim H, Kim Y, Shin MH, et al. Early psychiatric referral after attempted suicide helps prevent suicide reattempts: a longitudinal national cohort study in South Korea. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:607892. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.607892
• Michaud L, Berva S, Ostertag L, et al. When to discharge and when to voluntary or compulsory hospitalize? Factors associated with treatment decision after self-harm. Psychiatry Res. 2022;317:114810. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114810

The human microbiota refers to the collection of bacteria, archaea, eukarya, and viruses that reside within the human body. The term gut microbiome indicates the composition of these microbes and genetic codes in the intestine.¹ Harkening back to the ancient Greek physician Galen, who treated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms to relieve mental disturbances such as psychosis, the gut has been a therapeutic target in schizophrenia long before antipsychotics and the DSM.² In recent years, research into the gut microbiome has drastically increased, with genetic sequencing affording a more precise look into the specific bacteria that call the human intestines their home. This has led to the recognition that the gut microbiome may be severely disrupted in schizophrenia, a condition known as dysbiosis. Preliminary research suggests that gut bacteria are more helpful than many human genes in distinguishing individuals with schizophrenia from their healthy counterparts.^3,4 In this article, we discuss the potential role of the gut microbiome in schizophrenia, including new research correlating clinical symptoms of psychosis with dysbiosis. We also provide recommendations for promoting a healthy gut microbiome.

The enteric brain across life

The composition of our bodies is far more microbiota than human. Strikingly, microbiota cells in the gut outnumber human cells, and the distal gut alone hosts bacteria with 100 times the genetic content of the entire genome.⁵ The intricate meshwork of nerves in the gut is often called the enteric brain because the gut consists of 100 million neurons and synthesizes many neuroactive chemicals implicated in mood disorders and psychosis, including serotonin, dopamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and acetylcholine.⁶ The variety of neuro­immunologic, hormonal, and metabolic paths by which the gutmicrobiome and the brain interact are collectively known as the gut-microbiota-brainaxis.⁷

How do we acquire our gut microbiome, and how does it come to influence ourbrain and behavior? On the first day of life, as babies pass through the birth canal, they are bathed in their mother’s vaginal microbiota. In the following weeks, the microbiome expands and colonizes the gut as bacteria are introduced from environmental sources such as skin-to-skin contact and breastmilk.⁸ The microbiome continues to evolve throughout early life. As children expand their diets and navigate new aspects of the physical world, additional bacteria join the unseen ecosystem growing inside.⁹ The development of the microbiome coincides with the development of the brain. From preclinical studies, we know the gut microbiome mediates important aspects of neurodevelopment such as the formation of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), synaptic pruning, glial activation, and myelination.¹⁰ Interestingly, many of the risk factors for schizophrenia are associated with gut dysbiosis, including obstetric complications, infections treated with antibiotics, and urbanization.^11-15

Throughout human life, the gut and brain remain in close communication. The gut microbiota continue to produce monoamines, along with other metabolites that are able to cross the BBB.⁶ The HPA axis, stimulation of the immune system, and the vagus nerve all provide highways of communication between the gut and the brain.⁷ The relationship between the enteric brain and cephalic brain continues through life, even up to a person’s final hour. One autopsy study that is often cited (but soberingly, cannot be found online) allegedly revealed that 92% of schizophrenia patients had developed colitis by the time of death.^16,17

First-episode psychosis and antipsychotic treatment

For patients with schizophrenia, first-episode psychosis (FEP) represents a cocktail of mounting genetic and environmental factors. Typically, by the time a patient receives psychiatric care, they present with characteristic psychotic symptoms—hallucinations, delusions, bizarre behavior, and unusual thought process—along with a unique gut microbiome profile.

This disrupted microbiome coincides with a marked state of inflammation in the intestines. Inflammation triggers increased endothelial barrier permeability, similar to the way immune signals increase capillary permeability to allow immune cells into the periphery of the blood. Specific gut bacteria play specific roles in maintaining the gut barrier.^18,19 Disruptions in the bacteria that maintain the gut barrier, combined with inflammation, contribute to a leaky gut. A leaky gut barrier allows bacterial and immune products to more easily enter the bloodstream and then the brain, which is a potential source of neuroinflammation in schizophrenia.²⁰ This increase in gut permeability (leaky gut syndrome) is likely one of several reasons low-grade inflammation is common in schizophrenia—numerous studies show higher serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines along with antibacterial immunoglobulins in patients with FEP.^21,22

Fortunately, antipsychotics, especially the second-generation agents, help restore a healthy gut microbiome and have substantial anti-inflammatory properties.^23,24 These medications interact heavily with the gut microbiome: they have been found to have antibiotic properties, even in doses lower than would normally reach the gut microbiome.²⁵ In humans, a randomized controlled trial of probiotic supplementation for schizophrenia patients taking antipsychotics showed a reduction in GI symptoms but no significant improvement in psychotic symptoms.²⁶

Dysbiosis in schizophrenia: cause or effect?

There is no consensus on what constitutes a healthy gut microbiome because the gut microbiome is highly variable, even among healthy individuals, and can change quickly. Those who adopt new diets, for example, see drastic shifts in the gut microbiome within a few days.²⁷ Despite this variation, the main separation between a healthy and dysbiotic gut comes from the diversity of bacteria present in the gut—a healthy gut microbiome is associated with increased diversity. Numerous disease states have been associated with decreased bacterial diversity, including Clostridium difficile infection, Parkinson disease, depression, Crohn disease, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders.^28,29

Although there are ethical limitations to studying causality in humans directly, animal models have provided a great deal of insight into the gut microbiome’s role in the development of schizophrenia. A recent study used fecal transplant to provide the gut microbiome from patients with schizophrenia to a group of germ-free mice and compared these animals to a group of mice that received a fecal transplant from individuals with a healthy gut microbiome. The mice receiving the schizophrenia microbiome showed an increased startle response and hyperactivity.³ This was consistent with mouse models of schizophrenia, although with obvious limitations.³⁰ In addition, the brains of these animals showed changes in glutamate, glutamine, and GABA in the hippocampus; these chemicals play a role in the neurophysiology of schizophrenia.^3,31 This study has not yet been replicated, and considerable variation remains within the schizophrenia biosignature.

Continue to: Clinical symptoms of psychosis and the gut microbiome

Previous literature has grouped patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders as 1 unified study group. But as is the case with many psychiatric conditions, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in neurobiology, genetics, and microbiome composition among individuals with schizophrenia.³²

Researchers have begun to investigate ways in which the gut microbiome varies regarding the clinical symptoms of psychosis.³³ The Table^3,34-39 provides an overview of 7 human studies of gut microbiome changes relating to clinical features of schizophrenia. In these studies, researchers have found correlations between the gut microbiome and a tendency toward violence,³⁷ cognitive deficits,^34-36,39 depressive symptoms,^35,39 and numerous other clinical features of psychosis. Most of these correlations have not yet been replicated by further studies. But among studies with similar clinical questions, 3 reported changes in gut microbiome correlated with overall symptom severity, and 4 studies correlated changes with negative symptom severity. In 2 studies,^3,34Lachnospiraceae was correlated with worsened symptom severity. However, this may have been the result of poor control for antipsychotic use, as 1 study in bipolar patients found that Lachnospiraceae was increased in those taking antipsychotics compared to those who were not treated with antipsychotics.⁴⁰ The specific shifts in bacteria seen for overall symptom and negative symptom severity were not consistent across studies. This is not surprising because the gut microbiome varies with diet and geographic region,⁴¹ and patients in these studies were from a variety of regions. Multiple studies demonstrated gut microbiome alterations for patients with more severe negative symptoms. This is particularly interesting because negative symptoms are often difficult to treat and do not respond to antipsychotics.⁴² This research suggests the gut microbiome may be helpful in developing future treatments for patients with negative symptoms that do not respond to existing treatments.

Research of probiotic supplementation for ameliorating symptoms of schizophrenia has yielded mixed results.⁴³ It is possible that studies of probiotic supplementation have failed to consider the variations in the gut microbiome among individuals with schizophrenia. A better understanding of the variations in gut microbiome may allow for the development of more personalized interventions.

Recommendations for a healthy gut microbiome

In addition to antipsychotics, many other evidence-based interventions can be used to help restore a healthy gut microbiome in patients with schizophrenia. To improve the gut microbiome, we suggest discussing the following changes with patients:

• Quitting smoking. Smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia but decreases gut microbiome diversity.⁴⁴
• Avoiding excessive alcohol use. Excessive alcohol use contributes to dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability.⁴⁵ Moderate alcohol consumption does not appear to have the same harmful effects on the microbiome.⁴⁶
• Avoiding the use of recreational drugs, including marijuana, which impact the gut microbiome.⁴⁷
• Consuming a diet rich in fiber.⁴⁸ Presently, there is not enough evidence to recommend probiotic supplementation to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia.⁴¹ Similar to probiotics, fermented foods contain Lactobacillus, a bacterial species that produces lactic acid.⁴⁹Lactobacillus is enriched in the gut microbiome in some neurodegenerative diseases, and lactic acid can be neurotoxic at high levels.^50-52 Therefore, clinicians should not explicitly recommend fermented foods under the assumption of improved brain health. A diet rich in soluble fiber has been consistently shown to promote anti-inflammatory bacteria and is much more likely to be beneficial.^53,54 Soluble fiber is found in foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, and oats.
• Exercising can increase microbiome diversity and provide anti-inflammatory effects in the gut.^55,56 A recent review found that steady-state aerobic and high-intensity exercise interventions have positive effects on mood, cognition, and other negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.⁵⁵
• Minimizing stress. Psychological stress and physiological stress from untreated medical conditions are toxic to healthy gut bacteria and weaken the gut barrier.⁵⁷
• Mitigating exposure to pollution. Environmental pollution, including exposures to air pollution, heavy metals, and pesticides, disrupts the gut microbiome.⁵⁸

The American Heart Association publishes lifestyle recommendations for individuals with heart disease and the National Institutes of Health publishes lifestyle recommendations for patients with chronic kidney disease. This leads us to question why the American Psychiatric Association has not published lifestyle recommendations for those with severe mental illness. The effects of lifestyle on both the gut microbiome and symptom mitigation is critical. With increasingly shortened appointments, standardized guidelines would benefit psychiatrists and patients alike.

Bottom Line

The gut microbiome is connected to the clinical symptoms of psychosis via a variety of hormonal, neuroimmune, and metabolic mechanisms active across the lifespan. Despite advances in research, there is still much to be understood regarding this relationship. Clinicians should discuss with patients ways to promote a healthy gut microbiome, including consuming a diet rich in fiber, avoiding use of recreational drugs, and exercising regularly.

Related Resources

• Nocera A, Nasrallah HA. The association of the gut microbiota with clinical features in schizophrenia. Behav Sci. 2022;12(4):89.
• Nasrallah HA. It takes guts to be mentally ill: microbiota and psychopathology. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(9):4-6.

The human microbiota refers to the collection of bacteria, archaea, eukarya, and viruses that reside within the human body. The term gut microbiome indicates the composition of these microbes and genetic codes in the intestine.¹ Harkening back to the ancient Greek physician Galen, who treated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms to relieve mental disturbances such as psychosis, the gut has been a therapeutic target in schizophrenia long before antipsychotics and the DSM.² In recent years, research into the gut microbiome has drastically increased, with genetic sequencing affording a more precise look into the specific bacteria that call the human intestines their home. This has led to the recognition that the gut microbiome may be severely disrupted in schizophrenia, a condition known as dysbiosis. Preliminary research suggests that gut bacteria are more helpful than many human genes in distinguishing individuals with schizophrenia from their healthy counterparts.^3,4 In this article, we discuss the potential role of the gut microbiome in schizophrenia, including new research correlating clinical symptoms of psychosis with dysbiosis. We also provide recommendations for promoting a healthy gut microbiome.

The enteric brain across life

The composition of our bodies is far more microbiota than human. Strikingly, microbiota cells in the gut outnumber human cells, and the distal gut alone hosts bacteria with 100 times the genetic content of the entire genome.⁵ The intricate meshwork of nerves in the gut is often called the enteric brain because the gut consists of 100 million neurons and synthesizes many neuroactive chemicals implicated in mood disorders and psychosis, including serotonin, dopamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and acetylcholine.⁶ The variety of neuro­immunologic, hormonal, and metabolic paths by which the gutmicrobiome and the brain interact are collectively known as the gut-microbiota-brainaxis.⁷

How do we acquire our gut microbiome, and how does it come to influence ourbrain and behavior? On the first day of life, as babies pass through the birth canal, they are bathed in their mother’s vaginal microbiota. In the following weeks, the microbiome expands and colonizes the gut as bacteria are introduced from environmental sources such as skin-to-skin contact and breastmilk.⁸ The microbiome continues to evolve throughout early life. As children expand their diets and navigate new aspects of the physical world, additional bacteria join the unseen ecosystem growing inside.⁹ The development of the microbiome coincides with the development of the brain. From preclinical studies, we know the gut microbiome mediates important aspects of neurodevelopment such as the formation of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), synaptic pruning, glial activation, and myelination.¹⁰ Interestingly, many of the risk factors for schizophrenia are associated with gut dysbiosis, including obstetric complications, infections treated with antibiotics, and urbanization.^11-15

Throughout human life, the gut and brain remain in close communication. The gut microbiota continue to produce monoamines, along with other metabolites that are able to cross the BBB.⁶ The HPA axis, stimulation of the immune system, and the vagus nerve all provide highways of communication between the gut and the brain.⁷ The relationship between the enteric brain and cephalic brain continues through life, even up to a person’s final hour. One autopsy study that is often cited (but soberingly, cannot be found online) allegedly revealed that 92% of schizophrenia patients had developed colitis by the time of death.^16,17

First-episode psychosis and antipsychotic treatment

For patients with schizophrenia, first-episode psychosis (FEP) represents a cocktail of mounting genetic and environmental factors. Typically, by the time a patient receives psychiatric care, they present with characteristic psychotic symptoms—hallucinations, delusions, bizarre behavior, and unusual thought process—along with a unique gut microbiome profile.

This disrupted microbiome coincides with a marked state of inflammation in the intestines. Inflammation triggers increased endothelial barrier permeability, similar to the way immune signals increase capillary permeability to allow immune cells into the periphery of the blood. Specific gut bacteria play specific roles in maintaining the gut barrier.^18,19 Disruptions in the bacteria that maintain the gut barrier, combined with inflammation, contribute to a leaky gut. A leaky gut barrier allows bacterial and immune products to more easily enter the bloodstream and then the brain, which is a potential source of neuroinflammation in schizophrenia.²⁰ This increase in gut permeability (leaky gut syndrome) is likely one of several reasons low-grade inflammation is common in schizophrenia—numerous studies show higher serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines along with antibacterial immunoglobulins in patients with FEP.^21,22

Fortunately, antipsychotics, especially the second-generation agents, help restore a healthy gut microbiome and have substantial anti-inflammatory properties.^23,24 These medications interact heavily with the gut microbiome: they have been found to have antibiotic properties, even in doses lower than would normally reach the gut microbiome.²⁵ In humans, a randomized controlled trial of probiotic supplementation for schizophrenia patients taking antipsychotics showed a reduction in GI symptoms but no significant improvement in psychotic symptoms.²⁶

Dysbiosis in schizophrenia: cause or effect?

There is no consensus on what constitutes a healthy gut microbiome because the gut microbiome is highly variable, even among healthy individuals, and can change quickly. Those who adopt new diets, for example, see drastic shifts in the gut microbiome within a few days.²⁷ Despite this variation, the main separation between a healthy and dysbiotic gut comes from the diversity of bacteria present in the gut—a healthy gut microbiome is associated with increased diversity. Numerous disease states have been associated with decreased bacterial diversity, including Clostridium difficile infection, Parkinson disease, depression, Crohn disease, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders.^28,29

Although there are ethical limitations to studying causality in humans directly, animal models have provided a great deal of insight into the gut microbiome’s role in the development of schizophrenia. A recent study used fecal transplant to provide the gut microbiome from patients with schizophrenia to a group of germ-free mice and compared these animals to a group of mice that received a fecal transplant from individuals with a healthy gut microbiome. The mice receiving the schizophrenia microbiome showed an increased startle response and hyperactivity.³ This was consistent with mouse models of schizophrenia, although with obvious limitations.³⁰ In addition, the brains of these animals showed changes in glutamate, glutamine, and GABA in the hippocampus; these chemicals play a role in the neurophysiology of schizophrenia.^3,31 This study has not yet been replicated, and considerable variation remains within the schizophrenia biosignature.

Continue to: Clinical symptoms of psychosis and the gut microbiome

Previous literature has grouped patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders as 1 unified study group. But as is the case with many psychiatric conditions, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in neurobiology, genetics, and microbiome composition among individuals with schizophrenia.³²

Researchers have begun to investigate ways in which the gut microbiome varies regarding the clinical symptoms of psychosis.³³ The Table^3,34-39 provides an overview of 7 human studies of gut microbiome changes relating to clinical features of schizophrenia. In these studies, researchers have found correlations between the gut microbiome and a tendency toward violence,³⁷ cognitive deficits,^34-36,39 depressive symptoms,^35,39 and numerous other clinical features of psychosis. Most of these correlations have not yet been replicated by further studies. But among studies with similar clinical questions, 3 reported changes in gut microbiome correlated with overall symptom severity, and 4 studies correlated changes with negative symptom severity. In 2 studies,^3,34Lachnospiraceae was correlated with worsened symptom severity. However, this may have been the result of poor control for antipsychotic use, as 1 study in bipolar patients found that Lachnospiraceae was increased in those taking antipsychotics compared to those who were not treated with antipsychotics.⁴⁰ The specific shifts in bacteria seen for overall symptom and negative symptom severity were not consistent across studies. This is not surprising because the gut microbiome varies with diet and geographic region,⁴¹ and patients in these studies were from a variety of regions. Multiple studies demonstrated gut microbiome alterations for patients with more severe negative symptoms. This is particularly interesting because negative symptoms are often difficult to treat and do not respond to antipsychotics.⁴² This research suggests the gut microbiome may be helpful in developing future treatments for patients with negative symptoms that do not respond to existing treatments.

Research of probiotic supplementation for ameliorating symptoms of schizophrenia has yielded mixed results.⁴³ It is possible that studies of probiotic supplementation have failed to consider the variations in the gut microbiome among individuals with schizophrenia. A better understanding of the variations in gut microbiome may allow for the development of more personalized interventions.

Recommendations for a healthy gut microbiome

In addition to antipsychotics, many other evidence-based interventions can be used to help restore a healthy gut microbiome in patients with schizophrenia. To improve the gut microbiome, we suggest discussing the following changes with patients:

• Quitting smoking. Smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia but decreases gut microbiome diversity.⁴⁴
• Avoiding excessive alcohol use. Excessive alcohol use contributes to dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability.⁴⁵ Moderate alcohol consumption does not appear to have the same harmful effects on the microbiome.⁴⁶
• Avoiding the use of recreational drugs, including marijuana, which impact the gut microbiome.⁴⁷
• Consuming a diet rich in fiber.⁴⁸ Presently, there is not enough evidence to recommend probiotic supplementation to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia.⁴¹ Similar to probiotics, fermented foods contain Lactobacillus, a bacterial species that produces lactic acid.⁴⁹Lactobacillus is enriched in the gut microbiome in some neurodegenerative diseases, and lactic acid can be neurotoxic at high levels.^50-52 Therefore, clinicians should not explicitly recommend fermented foods under the assumption of improved brain health. A diet rich in soluble fiber has been consistently shown to promote anti-inflammatory bacteria and is much more likely to be beneficial.^53,54 Soluble fiber is found in foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, and oats.
• Exercising can increase microbiome diversity and provide anti-inflammatory effects in the gut.^55,56 A recent review found that steady-state aerobic and high-intensity exercise interventions have positive effects on mood, cognition, and other negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.⁵⁵
• Minimizing stress. Psychological stress and physiological stress from untreated medical conditions are toxic to healthy gut bacteria and weaken the gut barrier.⁵⁷
• Mitigating exposure to pollution. Environmental pollution, including exposures to air pollution, heavy metals, and pesticides, disrupts the gut microbiome.⁵⁸

The American Heart Association publishes lifestyle recommendations for individuals with heart disease and the National Institutes of Health publishes lifestyle recommendations for patients with chronic kidney disease. This leads us to question why the American Psychiatric Association has not published lifestyle recommendations for those with severe mental illness. The effects of lifestyle on both the gut microbiome and symptom mitigation is critical. With increasingly shortened appointments, standardized guidelines would benefit psychiatrists and patients alike.

Bottom Line

The gut microbiome is connected to the clinical symptoms of psychosis via a variety of hormonal, neuroimmune, and metabolic mechanisms active across the lifespan. Despite advances in research, there is still much to be understood regarding this relationship. Clinicians should discuss with patients ways to promote a healthy gut microbiome, including consuming a diet rich in fiber, avoiding use of recreational drugs, and exercising regularly.

Related Resources

• Nocera A, Nasrallah HA. The association of the gut microbiota with clinical features in schizophrenia. Behav Sci. 2022;12(4):89.
• Nasrallah HA. It takes guts to be mentally ill: microbiota and psychopathology. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(9):4-6.

The human microbiota refers to the collection of bacteria, archaea, eukarya, and viruses that reside within the human body. The term gut microbiome indicates the composition of these microbes and genetic codes in the intestine.¹ Harkening back to the ancient Greek physician Galen, who treated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms to relieve mental disturbances such as psychosis, the gut has been a therapeutic target in schizophrenia long before antipsychotics and the DSM.² In recent years, research into the gut microbiome has drastically increased, with genetic sequencing affording a more precise look into the specific bacteria that call the human intestines their home. This has led to the recognition that the gut microbiome may be severely disrupted in schizophrenia, a condition known as dysbiosis. Preliminary research suggests that gut bacteria are more helpful than many human genes in distinguishing individuals with schizophrenia from their healthy counterparts.^3,4 In this article, we discuss the potential role of the gut microbiome in schizophrenia, including new research correlating clinical symptoms of psychosis with dysbiosis. We also provide recommendations for promoting a healthy gut microbiome.

The enteric brain across life

The composition of our bodies is far more microbiota than human. Strikingly, microbiota cells in the gut outnumber human cells, and the distal gut alone hosts bacteria with 100 times the genetic content of the entire genome.⁵ The intricate meshwork of nerves in the gut is often called the enteric brain because the gut consists of 100 million neurons and synthesizes many neuroactive chemicals implicated in mood disorders and psychosis, including serotonin, dopamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and acetylcholine.⁶ The variety of neuro­immunologic, hormonal, and metabolic paths by which the gutmicrobiome and the brain interact are collectively known as the gut-microbiota-brainaxis.⁷

How do we acquire our gut microbiome, and how does it come to influence ourbrain and behavior? On the first day of life, as babies pass through the birth canal, they are bathed in their mother’s vaginal microbiota. In the following weeks, the microbiome expands and colonizes the gut as bacteria are introduced from environmental sources such as skin-to-skin contact and breastmilk.⁸ The microbiome continues to evolve throughout early life. As children expand their diets and navigate new aspects of the physical world, additional bacteria join the unseen ecosystem growing inside.⁹ The development of the microbiome coincides with the development of the brain. From preclinical studies, we know the gut microbiome mediates important aspects of neurodevelopment such as the formation of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), synaptic pruning, glial activation, and myelination.¹⁰ Interestingly, many of the risk factors for schizophrenia are associated with gut dysbiosis, including obstetric complications, infections treated with antibiotics, and urbanization.^11-15

Throughout human life, the gut and brain remain in close communication. The gut microbiota continue to produce monoamines, along with other metabolites that are able to cross the BBB.⁶ The HPA axis, stimulation of the immune system, and the vagus nerve all provide highways of communication between the gut and the brain.⁷ The relationship between the enteric brain and cephalic brain continues through life, even up to a person’s final hour. One autopsy study that is often cited (but soberingly, cannot be found online) allegedly revealed that 92% of schizophrenia patients had developed colitis by the time of death.^16,17

First-episode psychosis and antipsychotic treatment

For patients with schizophrenia, first-episode psychosis (FEP) represents a cocktail of mounting genetic and environmental factors. Typically, by the time a patient receives psychiatric care, they present with characteristic psychotic symptoms—hallucinations, delusions, bizarre behavior, and unusual thought process—along with a unique gut microbiome profile.

This disrupted microbiome coincides with a marked state of inflammation in the intestines. Inflammation triggers increased endothelial barrier permeability, similar to the way immune signals increase capillary permeability to allow immune cells into the periphery of the blood. Specific gut bacteria play specific roles in maintaining the gut barrier.^18,19 Disruptions in the bacteria that maintain the gut barrier, combined with inflammation, contribute to a leaky gut. A leaky gut barrier allows bacterial and immune products to more easily enter the bloodstream and then the brain, which is a potential source of neuroinflammation in schizophrenia.²⁰ This increase in gut permeability (leaky gut syndrome) is likely one of several reasons low-grade inflammation is common in schizophrenia—numerous studies show higher serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines along with antibacterial immunoglobulins in patients with FEP.^21,22

Fortunately, antipsychotics, especially the second-generation agents, help restore a healthy gut microbiome and have substantial anti-inflammatory properties.^23,24 These medications interact heavily with the gut microbiome: they have been found to have antibiotic properties, even in doses lower than would normally reach the gut microbiome.²⁵ In humans, a randomized controlled trial of probiotic supplementation for schizophrenia patients taking antipsychotics showed a reduction in GI symptoms but no significant improvement in psychotic symptoms.²⁶

Dysbiosis in schizophrenia: cause or effect?

There is no consensus on what constitutes a healthy gut microbiome because the gut microbiome is highly variable, even among healthy individuals, and can change quickly. Those who adopt new diets, for example, see drastic shifts in the gut microbiome within a few days.²⁷ Despite this variation, the main separation between a healthy and dysbiotic gut comes from the diversity of bacteria present in the gut—a healthy gut microbiome is associated with increased diversity. Numerous disease states have been associated with decreased bacterial diversity, including Clostridium difficile infection, Parkinson disease, depression, Crohn disease, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders.^28,29

Although there are ethical limitations to studying causality in humans directly, animal models have provided a great deal of insight into the gut microbiome’s role in the development of schizophrenia. A recent study used fecal transplant to provide the gut microbiome from patients with schizophrenia to a group of germ-free mice and compared these animals to a group of mice that received a fecal transplant from individuals with a healthy gut microbiome. The mice receiving the schizophrenia microbiome showed an increased startle response and hyperactivity.³ This was consistent with mouse models of schizophrenia, although with obvious limitations.³⁰ In addition, the brains of these animals showed changes in glutamate, glutamine, and GABA in the hippocampus; these chemicals play a role in the neurophysiology of schizophrenia.^3,31 This study has not yet been replicated, and considerable variation remains within the schizophrenia biosignature.

Continue to: Clinical symptoms of psychosis and the gut microbiome

Previous literature has grouped patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders as 1 unified study group. But as is the case with many psychiatric conditions, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in neurobiology, genetics, and microbiome composition among individuals with schizophrenia.³²

Researchers have begun to investigate ways in which the gut microbiome varies regarding the clinical symptoms of psychosis.³³ The Table^3,34-39 provides an overview of 7 human studies of gut microbiome changes relating to clinical features of schizophrenia. In these studies, researchers have found correlations between the gut microbiome and a tendency toward violence,³⁷ cognitive deficits,^34-36,39 depressive symptoms,^35,39 and numerous other clinical features of psychosis. Most of these correlations have not yet been replicated by further studies. But among studies with similar clinical questions, 3 reported changes in gut microbiome correlated with overall symptom severity, and 4 studies correlated changes with negative symptom severity. In 2 studies,^3,34Lachnospiraceae was correlated with worsened symptom severity. However, this may have been the result of poor control for antipsychotic use, as 1 study in bipolar patients found that Lachnospiraceae was increased in those taking antipsychotics compared to those who were not treated with antipsychotics.⁴⁰ The specific shifts in bacteria seen for overall symptom and negative symptom severity were not consistent across studies. This is not surprising because the gut microbiome varies with diet and geographic region,⁴¹ and patients in these studies were from a variety of regions. Multiple studies demonstrated gut microbiome alterations for patients with more severe negative symptoms. This is particularly interesting because negative symptoms are often difficult to treat and do not respond to antipsychotics.⁴² This research suggests the gut microbiome may be helpful in developing future treatments for patients with negative symptoms that do not respond to existing treatments.

Research of probiotic supplementation for ameliorating symptoms of schizophrenia has yielded mixed results.⁴³ It is possible that studies of probiotic supplementation have failed to consider the variations in the gut microbiome among individuals with schizophrenia. A better understanding of the variations in gut microbiome may allow for the development of more personalized interventions.

Recommendations for a healthy gut microbiome

In addition to antipsychotics, many other evidence-based interventions can be used to help restore a healthy gut microbiome in patients with schizophrenia. To improve the gut microbiome, we suggest discussing the following changes with patients:

• Quitting smoking. Smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia but decreases gut microbiome diversity.⁴⁴
• Avoiding excessive alcohol use. Excessive alcohol use contributes to dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability.⁴⁵ Moderate alcohol consumption does not appear to have the same harmful effects on the microbiome.⁴⁶
• Avoiding the use of recreational drugs, including marijuana, which impact the gut microbiome.⁴⁷
• Consuming a diet rich in fiber.⁴⁸ Presently, there is not enough evidence to recommend probiotic supplementation to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia.⁴¹ Similar to probiotics, fermented foods contain Lactobacillus, a bacterial species that produces lactic acid.⁴⁹Lactobacillus is enriched in the gut microbiome in some neurodegenerative diseases, and lactic acid can be neurotoxic at high levels.^50-52 Therefore, clinicians should not explicitly recommend fermented foods under the assumption of improved brain health. A diet rich in soluble fiber has been consistently shown to promote anti-inflammatory bacteria and is much more likely to be beneficial.^53,54 Soluble fiber is found in foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, and oats.
• Exercising can increase microbiome diversity and provide anti-inflammatory effects in the gut.^55,56 A recent review found that steady-state aerobic and high-intensity exercise interventions have positive effects on mood, cognition, and other negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.⁵⁵
• Minimizing stress. Psychological stress and physiological stress from untreated medical conditions are toxic to healthy gut bacteria and weaken the gut barrier.⁵⁷
• Mitigating exposure to pollution. Environmental pollution, including exposures to air pollution, heavy metals, and pesticides, disrupts the gut microbiome.⁵⁸

The American Heart Association publishes lifestyle recommendations for individuals with heart disease and the National Institutes of Health publishes lifestyle recommendations for patients with chronic kidney disease. This leads us to question why the American Psychiatric Association has not published lifestyle recommendations for those with severe mental illness. The effects of lifestyle on both the gut microbiome and symptom mitigation is critical. With increasingly shortened appointments, standardized guidelines would benefit psychiatrists and patients alike.

Bottom Line

The gut microbiome is connected to the clinical symptoms of psychosis via a variety of hormonal, neuroimmune, and metabolic mechanisms active across the lifespan. Despite advances in research, there is still much to be understood regarding this relationship. Clinicians should discuss with patients ways to promote a healthy gut microbiome, including consuming a diet rich in fiber, avoiding use of recreational drugs, and exercising regularly.

Related Resources

• Nocera A, Nasrallah HA. The association of the gut microbiota with clinical features in schizophrenia. Behav Sci. 2022;12(4):89.
• Nasrallah HA. It takes guts to be mentally ill: microbiota and psychopathology. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(9):4-6.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and disabling psychiatric disorder. The lifetime prevalence among American adults is 6.8%.¹ Management of PTSD includes treating distressing symptoms, reducing avoidant behaviors, treating comorbid conditions (eg, depression, substance use disorders, or mood dysregulation), and improving adaptive functioning, which includes restoring a psychological sense of safety and trust. PTSD can be treated using evidence-based psychotherapies, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of both modalities. For adults, evidence-based treatment guidelines recommend the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy, cognitive processing therapy, cognitive therapy, and prolonged exposure therapy.² These guidelines also recommend (with some reservations) the use of brief eclectic psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and narrative exposure therapy.² Although the evidence base for the use of medications is not as strong as that for the psychotherapies listed above, the guidelines recommend the use of fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine.²

Currently available treatments for PTSD have significant limitations. For example, trauma-focused psychotherapies can have significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, or treatment dropout.^3,4 Additionally, such therapies are not widely accessible. As for pharmacotherapy, very few available options are supported by evidence, and the efficacy of these options is limited, as shown by the reports that only 60% of patients with PTSD show a response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and only 20% to 30% achieve complete remission.⁵ Additionally, it may take months for patients to achieve an acceptable level of improvement with medications. As a result, a substantial proportion of patients who seek treatment continue to remain symptomatic, with impaired levels of functioning. This lack of progress in PTSD treatment has been labeled as a national crisis, calling for an urgent need to find effective pharmacologic treatments for PTSD.⁶

In this article, we review 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for PTSD published within the last 5 years (Table^7-14).

1. Feder A, Costi S, Rutter SB, et al. A randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2021;178(2):193-202

Feder et al had previously found a significant and quick decrease in PTSD symptoms after a single dose of IV ketamine had. This is the first RCT to examine the effectiveness and safety of repeated IV ketamine infusions for the treatment of persistent PTSD.⁷ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm controlled trial treated 30 individuals with chronic PTSD with 6 infusions of either ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.045 mg/kg) over 2 consecutive weeks. 
• Participants were individuals age 18 to 70 with a primary diagnosis of chronic PTSD according to the DSM-5 criteria and determined by The Structure Clinical Interview for DSM-5, with a score ≥30 on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5).  
• Any severe or unstable medical condition, active suicidal or homicidal ideation, lifetime history of psychotic or bipolar disorder, current anorexia nervosa or bulimia, alcohol or substance use disorder within 3 months of screening, history of recreational ketamine or phencyclidine use on more than 1 occasion or any use in the previous 2 years, and ongoing treatment with a long-acting benzodiazepine or opioid medication were all considered exclusion criteria. Individuals who took short-acting benzodiazepines had their morning doses held on infusion days. Marijuana or cannabis derivatives were allowed. 
• The primary outcome measure was a change in PTSD symptom severity as measured with CAPS-5. This was administered before the first infusion and weekly thereafter. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised, the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and adverse effect measurements were used as secondary outcome measures. 
• Treatment response was defined as ≥30% symptom improvement 2 weeks after the first infusion as assessed with CAPS-5. 
• Individuals who responded to treatment were followed naturalistically weekly for up to 4 weeks and then monthly until loss of responder status, or up to 6 months if there was no loss of response. 

Outcomes

• At the second week, the mean CAPS-5 total score in the ketamine group was 11.88 points (SE = 3.96) lower than in the midazolam group (d = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.91).  
• In the ketamine group, 67% of patients responded to therapy, compared to 20% in the midazolam group.  
• Following the 2-week course of infusions, the median period until loss of response among ketamine responders was 27.5 days.  
• Ketamine infusions showed good tolerability and safety. There were no clinically significant adverse effects. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Repeated ketamine infusions are effective in reducing symptom severity in individuals with chronic PTSD. 
• Limitations to this study include the exclusion of individuals with comorbid bipolar disorder, current alcohol or substance use disorder, or suicidal ideations, the small sample size, and a higher rate of transient dissociative symptoms in the ketamine group. 
• Future studies could evaluate the efficacy of repeated ketamine infusions in individuals with treatment-resistant PTSD. Also, further studies are required to assess the efficacy of novel interventions to prevent relapse and evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of periodic IV ketamine use as maintenance.  
• Additional research might determine whether pairing psychotherapy with ketamine administration can lessen the risk of recurrence for PTSD patients after stopping ketamine infusions. 

2. Rauch SAM, Kim HM, Powell C, et al. Efficacy of prolonged exposure therapy, sertraline hydrochloride, and their combination among combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(2):117-126

Clinical practice recommendations for PTSD have identified trauma-focused psychotherapies and SSRIs as very effective treatments. The few studies that have compared trauma-focused psychotherapy to SSRIs or to a combination of treatments are not generalizable, have significant limitations, or are primarily concerned with refractory disorders or augmentation techniques. This study evaluated the efficacy of prolonged exposure therapy (PE) plus placebo, PE plus sertraline, and sertraline plus enhanced medication management in the treatment of PTSD.⁸ 

Study design

• This randomized, 4-site, 24-week clinical trial divided participants into 3 subgroups: PE plus placebo, PE plus sertraline, and sertraline plus enhanced medication management. 
• Participants were veterans or service members of the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars with combat-related PTSD and significant impairment as indicated by a CAPS score ≥50 for at least 3 months. The DSM-IV-TR version of CAPS was used because the DSM-5 version was not available at the time of the study.
• Individuals who had a current, imminent risk of suicide; active psychosis; alcohol or substance dependence in the past 8 weeks; inability to attend weekly appointments for the treatment period; prior intolerance to or failure of an adequate trial of PE or sertraline; medical illness likely to result in hospitalization or contraindication to study treatment; serious cognitive impairment; mild traumatic brain injury; or concurrent use of antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, prazosin, or sleep agents were excluded. 
• Participants completed up to thirteen 90-minute sessions of PE. 
• The sertraline dosage was titrated during a 10-week period and continued until Week 24. Dosages were adjusted between 50 and 200 mg/d, with the last dose increase at Week 10. 
• The primary outcome measure was symptom severity of PTSD in the past month as determined by CAPS score at Week 24.
• The secondary outcome was self-reported symptoms of PTSD (PTSD checklist [PCL] Specific Stressor Version), clinically meaningful change (reduction of ≥20 points or score ≤35 on CAPS), response (reduction of ≥50% in CAPS score), and remission (CAPS score ≤35). 

Outcomes

• At Week 24, 149 participants completed the study; 207 were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. 
• PTSD symptoms significantly decreased over 24 weeks, according to a modified intent-to-treat analysis utilizing a mixed model of repeated measurements; nevertheless, slopes were similar across therapy groups. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Although the severity of PTSD symptoms decreased in all 3 subgroups, there was no difference in PTSD symptom severity or change in symptoms at Week 24 among all 3 subgroups.  
• The main limitation of this study was the inclusion of only combat veterans. 
• Further research should focus on enhancing treatment retention and should include administering sustained exposure therapy at brief intervals. 

3. Lehrner A, Hildebrandt T, Bierer LM, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of hydrocortisone augmentation of prolonged exposure for PTSD in US combat veterans. Behav Res Ther. 2021;144:103924

First-line therapy for PTSD includes cognitive-behavioral therapies such as PE. However, because many people still have major adverse effects after receiving medication, improving treatment efficacy is a concern. Glucocorticoids promote extinction learning, and alterations in glucocorticoid signaling pathways have been associated with PTSD. Lehrner et al previously showed that adding hydrocortisone (HCORT) to PE therapy increased patients’ glucocorticoid sensitivity at baseline, improved treatment retention, and resulted in greater treatment improvements. This study evaluated HCORT in conjunction with PE for combat veterans with PTSD following deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.⁹ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial administered HCORT 30 mg oral or placebo to 96 combat veterans 30 minutes before PE sessions.  
• Participants were veterans previously deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq with deployment-related PTSD >6 months with a minimum CAPS score of 60. They were unmedicated or on a stable psychotropic regimen for ≥4 weeks. 
• Exclusion criteria included a lifetime history of a primary psychotic disorder (bipolar I disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder), medical or mental health condition other than PTSD that required immediate clinical attention, moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), substance abuse or dependence within the past 3 months, medical illness that contraindicated ingestion of hydrocortisone, acute suicide risk, and pregnancy or intent to become pregnant. 
• The primary outcome measures included PTSD severity as assessed with CAPS. 
• Secondary outcome measures included self-reported PTSD symptoms as assessed with the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) and depression as assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI). These scales were administered pretreatment, posttreatment, and at 3-months follow-up. 

Outcomes

• Out of 96 veterans enrolled, 60 were randomized and 52 completed the treatment.  
• Five participants were considered recovered early and completed <12 sessions.
• Of those who completed treatment, 50 completed the 1-week posttreatment evaluations and 49 completed the 3-month follow-up evaluation.
• There was no difference in the proportion of dropouts (13.33%) across the conditions.
• HCORT failed to significantly improve either secondary outcomes or PTSD symptoms, according to an intent-to-treat analysis.
• However, exploratory analyses revealed that veterans with recent post-concussive symptoms and moderate TBI exposure saw a larger decrease in hyperarousal symptoms after PE therapy with HCORT augmentation.  
• The reduction in avoidance symptoms with HCORT augmentation was also larger in veterans with higher baseline glucocorticoid sensitivity. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations 

• HCORT does not improve PTSD symptoms as assessed with the CAPS and PDS, or depression as assessed with the BDI. 
• The main limitation of this study is generalizability. 
• Further studies are needed to determine whether PE with HCORT could benefit veterans with indicators of enhanced glucocorticoid sensitivity, mild TBI, or postconcussive syndrome. 

4. Inslicht SS, Niles AN, Metzler TJ, et al. Randomized controlled experimental study of hydrocortisone and D-cycloserine effects on fear extinction in PTSD. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;47(11):1945-1952

PE, one of the most well-researched therapies for PTSD, is based on fear extinction. Exploring pharmacotherapies that improve fear extinction learning and their potential as supplements to PE is gaining increased attention. Such pharmacotherapies aim to improve the clinical impact of PE on the extent and persistence of symptom reduction. This study evaluated the effects of HCORT and D-cycloserine (DCS), a partial agonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, on the learning and consolidation of fear extinction in patients with PTSD.¹⁰ 

Study design

• This double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-group experimental design evaluated 90 individuals with PTSD who underwent fear conditioning with stimuli that was paired (CS+) or unpaired (CS−) with shock. 
• Participants were veterans and civilians age 18 to 65 recruited from VA outpatient and community clinics and internet advertisements who met the criteria for PTSD or subsyndromal PTSD (according to DSM-IV criteria) for at least 3 months. 
• Exclusion criteria included schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, substance abuse or dependence, alcohol dependence, previous moderate or severe head injury, seizure or neurological disorder, current infectious illness, systemic illness affecting CNS function, or other conditions known to affect psychophysiological responses. Excluded medications were antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, alpha- and beta-adrenergics, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, antihypertensives, sympathomimetics, anticholinergics, and steroids.  
• Extinction learning took place 72 hours after extinction, and extinction retention was evaluated 1 week later. Placebo, HCORT 25 mg, or DCS 50 mg was given 1 hour before extinction learning. 
• Clinical measures included PTSD diagnosis and symptom levels as determined by interview using CAPS and skin conduction response. 

Outcomes

• The mean shock level, mean pre-stimulus skin conductance level (SCL) during habituation, and mean SC orienting response during the habituation phase did not differ between groups and were not associated with differential fear conditioning. Therefore, variations in shock level preference, resting SCL, or SC orienting response magnitude are unlikely to account for differences between groups during extinction learning and retention.
• During extinction learning, the DCS and HCORT groups showed a reduced differential CS+/CS− skin conductance response (SCR) compared to placebo. 
• One week later, during the retention testing, there was a nonsignificant trend toward a smaller differential CS+/CS− SCR in the DCS group compared to placebo. HCORT and DCS administered as a single dosage facilitated fear extinction learning in individuals with PTSD symptoms. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations 

• In traumatized people with PTSD symptoms, a single dosage of HCORT or DCS enhanced the learning of fear extinction compared to placebo. A nonsignificant trend toward better extinction retention in the DCS group but not the HCORT group was also visible. 
• These results imply that glucocorticoids and NMDA agonists have the potential to promote extinction learning in PTSD. 
• Limitations include a lack of measures of glucocorticoid receptor sensitivity or FKBP5. 
• Further studies could evaluate these findings with the addition of blood biomarker measures such as glucocorticoid receptor sensitivity or FKBP5.  

5. Mitchell JM, Bogenschutz M, Lilienstein A, et al. MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):1025-1033. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01336-3

Poor PTSD treatment results are associated with numerous comorbid conditions, such as dissociation, depression, alcohol and substance use disorders, childhood trauma, and suicidal ideation, which frequently leads to treatment resistance. Therefore, it is crucial to find a treatment that works for individuals with PTSD who also have comorbid conditions. In animal models, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), an empathogen/entactogen with stimulant properties, has been shown to enhance fear memory extinction and modulate fear memory reconsolidation. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of MDMA-assisted therapy for treating patients with severe PTSD, including those with common comorbidities.¹¹ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-site, phase 3 clinical trial evaluated individuals randomized to receive manualized therapy with MDMA or with placebo, combined with 3 preparatory and 9 integrative therapy sessions.  
• Participants were 90 individuals (46 randomized to MDMA and 44 to placebo) with PTSD with a symptom duration ≥6 months and CAPS-5 total severity score ≥35 at baseline. 
• Exclusion criteria included primary psychotic disorder, bipolar I disorder, eating disorders with active purging, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, dissociative identity disorder, personality disorders, current alcohol and substance use disorders, lactation or pregnancy, and any condition that could make receiving a sympathomimetic medication dangerous due to hypertension or tachycardia, including uncontrolled hypertension, history of arrhythmia, or marked baseline prolongation of QT and/or QTc interval. 
• Three 8-hour experimental sessions of either therapy with MDMA assistance or therapy with a placebo control were given during the treatment period, and they were spaced approximately 4 weeks apart. 
• In each session, participants received placebo or a single divided dose of MDMA 80 to 180 mg. 
• At baseline and 2 months after the last experimental sessions, PTSD symptoms were measured with CAPS-5, and functional impairment was measured with Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). 
• The primary outcome measure was CAPS-5 total severity score at 18 weeks compared to baseline for MDMA-assisted therapy vs placebo-assisted therapy. 
• The secondary outcome measure was clinician-rated functional impairment using the mean difference in SDS total scores from baseline to 18 weeks for MDMA-assisted therapy vs placebo-assisted therapy. 

Outcomes

• MDMA was found to induce significant and robust attenuation in CAPS-5 score compared to placebo. 
• The mean change in CAPS-5 score in completers was –24.4 in the MDMA group and –13.9 in the placebo group. 
• MDMA significantly decreased the SDS total score. 
• MDMA did not induce suicidality, misuse, or QT prolongation. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• MDMA-assisted therapy is significantly more effective than manualized therapy with placebo in treating patients with severe PTSD, and it is also safe and well-tolerated, even in individuals with comorbidities. 
• No major safety issues were associated with MDMA-assisted treatment. 
• MDMA-assisted therapy should be promptly assessed for clinical usage because it has the potential to significantly transform the way PTSD is treated. 
• Limitations of this study include a smaller sample size (due to the COVID-19 pandemic); lack of ethnic and racial diversity; short duration; safety data were collected by site therapist, which limited the blinding; and the blinding of participants was difficult due to the subjective effects of MDMA, which could have resulted in expectation effects. 

6. Bonn-Miller MO, Sisley S, Riggs P, et al. The short-term impact of 3 smoked cannabis preparations versus placebo on PTSD symptoms: a randomized cross-over clinical trial. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0246990

Sertraline and paroxetine are the only FDA-approved medications for treating PTSD. Some evidence suggests cannabis may provide a therapeutic benefit for PTSD.¹⁵ This study examined the effects of 3 different preparations of cannabis for treating PTSD symptoms.¹²  

Study design

• This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial used 3 active treatment groups of cannabis: high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)/low cannabidiol (CBD), high CBD/low THC, and high THC/high CBD (THC+CBD). A low THC/low CBD preparation was used as a placebo. “High” content contained 9% to 15% concentration by weight of the respective cannabinoid, and “low” content contained <2% concentration by weight.  
• Inclusion criteria included being a US military veteran, meeting DSM-5 PTSD criteria for ≥6 months, having moderate symptom severity (CAPS-5 score ≥25), abstaining from cannabis 2 weeks prior to study and agreeing not to use any non-study cannabis during the trial, and being stable on medications/therapy prior to the study.  
• Exclusion criteria included women who were pregnant/nursing/child-bearing age and not taking an effective means of birth control; current/past serious mental illness, including psychotic and personality disorders; having a first-degree relative with a psychotic or bipolar disorder; having a high suicide risk based on Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale; meeting DSM-5 criteria for moderate-severe cannabis use disorder; screening positive for illicit substances; or having significant medical disease.  
• Participants in Stage 1 (n = 80) were randomized to 1 of the 3 active treatments or placebo for 3 weeks. After a 2-week washout, participants in Stage 2 (n = 74) were randomized to receive for 3 weeks 1 of the 3 active treatments they had not previously received.
• During each stage, participants had ad libitum use for a maximum of 1.8 g/d. 
• The primary outcome was change in PTSD symptom severity by the end of Stage 1 as assessed with CAPS-5.
• Secondary outcomes included the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), the general depression subscale and anxiety subscale from the self-report Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS), the Inventory of Psychosocial Functioning, and the Insomnia Severity Index. 

Outcomes

• Six participants did not continue to Stage 2. Three participants did not finish Stage 2 due to adverse effects, and 7 did not complete outcome measurements. The overall attrition rate was 16.3%. 
• There was no significant difference in total grams of smoked cannabis or placebo between the 4 treatment groups in Stage 1 at the end of 3 weeks. In Stage 2, there was a significant difference, with the THC+CBD group using more cannabis compared to the other 2 groups. 
• Each of the 4 groups had significant reductions in total CAPS-5 scores at the end of Stage 1, and there was no significant difference in CAPS-5 severity scores between the 4 groups.
• In Stage 1, PCL-5 scores were not significantly different between treatment groups from baseline to the end of stage. There was a significant difference in Stage 2 between the high CBD and THC+CBD groups, with the combined group reporting greater improvement of symptoms. 
• In Stage 2, the THC+CBD group reported greater reductions in pre/post IDAS social anxiety scores and IDAS general depression scores, and the high THC group reported greater reductions in pre/post IDAS social anxiety scores. 
• In Stage 1, 37 of 60 participants in the active groups reported at least 1 adverse event, and 45 of the 74 Stage 2 participants reported at least 1 adverse event. The most common adverse events were cough, throat irritation, and anxiety. Participants in the Stage 1 high THC group had a significant increase in reported withdrawal symptoms after 1 week of stopping use.  

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• This first randomized, placebo-control trial of cannabis in US veterans did not show a significant difference among treatment groups, including placebo, on the primary outcome of CAPS-5 score. All 4 groups had significant reductions in symptom severity on CAPS-5 and showed good tolerability.
• Prior beliefs about the effects of cannabis may have played a role in the reduction of PTSD symptoms in the placebo group.
• Many participants (n =34) were positive for THC during the screening process, so previous cannabis use/chronicity of cannabis use may have contributed.
• One limitation was that participants assigned to the Stage 1 high THC group had Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test scores (which assesses cannabis use disorder risk) about 2 times greater than participants in other conditions.
• Another limitation was that total cannabis use was lower than expected, as participants in Stage 1 used 8.2 g to 14.6 g over 3 weeks, though they had access to up to 37.8 g. 
• There was no placebo in Stage 2.
• Future studies should look at longer treatment periods with more participants.

7. Youngstedt SD, Kline CE, Reynolds AM, et al. Bright light treatment of combat-related PTSD: a randomized controlled trial. Milit Med. 2022;187(3-4):e435-e444

Bright light therapy is an inexpensive treatment approach that may affect serotonergic pathways.¹⁶ This study examined bright light therapy for reducing PTSD symptoms and examined if improvement of PTSD is related to a shift in circadian rhythm.¹³  

Study design

• Veterans with combat-related PTSD had to have been stable on treatment for at least 8 weeks or to have not received any other PTSD treatments prior to the study.
• Participants were randomized to active treatment of 30 minutes daily 10,000 lux ultraviolet-filtered white light while sitting within 18 inches (n = 34) or a control condition of 30 minutes daily inactivated negative ion generator (n = 35) for 4 weeks.
• Inclusion criteria included a CAPS score ≥30.
•  Exclusion criteria included high suicidality, high probability of alcohol/substance abuse in the past 3 months, bipolar disorder/mania/schizophrenia/psychosis, ophthalmologic deformities, shift work in past 2 months or travel across time zones in past 2 weeks, head trauma, high outdoor light exposure, history of winter depression, history of seizures, or myocardial infarction/stroke/cancer within 3 years.
• Primary outcomes were improvement on CAPS and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-IM) score at Week 4.
• Wrist actigraphy recordings measured sleep.
• Other measurements included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton atypical symptoms (HAM-AS), PCL-Military (PCL-M), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), BDI, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form Y-2), Beck Suicide Scale, and Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Effects questionnaire.

Outcomes

• There was a significant decrease in CAPS score in participants who received bright light therapy compared to controls. Treatment response (defined as ≥33% reduction in score) was significantly greater in the bright light (44%) vs control (8.6%) group. No participants achieved remission. 
• There was a significant improvement in CGI-IM scores in the bright light group, but no significant difference in participants who were judged to improve “much” or “very much.”
• PCL-M scores did not change significantly between groups, although a significantly greater proportion of participants had treatment response in the bright light group (33%) vs control (6%).
• There were no significant changes in HAM-D, HAM-AS, STAI, BDI, actigraphic estimates of sleep, or PSQI scores. 
• Bright light therapy resulted in phase advancement while control treatment had phase delay. 
• There were no significant differences in adverse effects. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Bright light therapy may be a treatment option or adjunct for combat-related PTSD as seen by improvement on CAPS and CGI scores, as well as a greater treatment response seen on CAPS and PCL-5 scores in the bright light group.  
• There was no significant difference for other measures, including depression, anxiety, and sleep.  
• Limitations include excluding patients with a wide variety of medical or psychiatric comorbidities, as well as limited long-term follow up data.  
• Other limitations include not knowing the precise amount of time participants stayed in front of the light device and loss of some actigraphic data (data from only 49 of 69 participants).  

8. Peterson AL, Mintz J, Moring JC, et al. In-office, in-home, and telehealth cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22(1):41 doi:10.1186/s12888-022-03699-4

Cognitive processing therapy (CPT), a type of trauma-focused psychotherapy, is an effective treatment for PTSD in the military population.^17,18 However, patients may not be able to or want to participate in such therapy due to barriers such as difficulty arranging transportation, being homebound due to injury, concerns about COVID-19, stigma, familial obligations, and job constraints. This study looked at if CPT delivered face-to-face at the patient’s home or via telehealth in home would be effective and increase accessibility.¹⁴  

Study design

• Participants (n = 120) were active-duty military and veterans who met DSM-5 criteria for PTSD. They were randomized to receive CPT in the office, in their home, or via telehealth. Participants could choose not to partake in 1 modality but were then randomized to 1 of the other 2. 
• Exclusion criteria included suicide/homicide risk needing intervention, items/situations pertaining to danger (ie, aggressive pet or unsafe neighborhood), significant alcohol/substance use, active psychosis, and impaired cognitive functioning. 
• The primary outcome measurement was change in PCL-5 and CAPS-5 score over 6 months. The BDI-II was used to assess depressive symptoms.  
• Secondary outcomes included the Reliable Change Index (defined as “an improvement of 10 or more points that was sustained at all subsequent assessments”) on the PCL-5 and remission on the CAPS-5.
• CPT was delivered in 60-minute sessions twice a week for 6 weeks. Participants who did not have electronic resources were loaned a telehealth apparatus. 

Outcomes

• Overall, 57% of participants opted out of 1 modality, which resulted in fewer participants being placed into the in-home arm (n = 32). Most participants chose not to do in-home treatments (54%), followed by in-office (29%), and telehealth (17%). 
• There was a significant posttreatment improvement in PCL-5 scores in all treatment arms, with improvement greater with in-home (d = 2.1) and telehealth (d = 2.0) vs in-office (d=1.3). The in-home and telehealth scores were significantly improved compared to in-office, and the difference between in-home and telehealth PCL-5 scores was minimal.
• At 6 months posttreatment, the differences between the 3 treatment groups on PCL-5 score were negligible. 
• CAPS-5 scores were significantly improved in all treatment arms, with improvement largest with in-home treatment; however, the differences between the groups were not significant.  
• BDI-II scores improved in all modalities but were larger in the in-home (d = 1.2) and telehealth (d = 1.1) arms than the in-office arm (d = 0.52). 
• Therapist time commitment was greater for the in-home and in-office arms (2 hours/session) than the telehealth arm (1 hour/session). This difference was due to commuting time for the patient or therapist.
• The dropout rate was not statistically significant between the groups.
• Adverse events did not significantly differ per group. The most commonly reported ones included nightmares, sleep difficulty, depression, anxiety, and irritability.

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients undergoing CPT had significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, with posttreatment PCL-5 improvement approximately twice as large in those who received the in-home and telehealth modalities vs in-office treatment. 
• The group differences were not seen on CAPS-5 scores at posttreatment, or PCL-5 or CAPS-5 scores at 6 months posttreatment.  
• In-home CPT was declined the most, which suggests that in-home distractions or the stigma of a mental health clinician being in their home played a role in patients’ decision-making. However, in-home CPT produced the greatest amount of improvement in PTSD symptoms. The authors concluded that in-home therapy should be reserved for those who are homebound or have travel limitations.  
• This study shows evidence that telehealth may be a good modality for CPT, as seen by improvement in PTSD symptoms and good acceptability and retention. 
• Limitations include more patients opting out of in-home CPT, and reimbursement for travel may not be available in the real-world setting.  

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and disabling psychiatric disorder. The lifetime prevalence among American adults is 6.8%.¹ Management of PTSD includes treating distressing symptoms, reducing avoidant behaviors, treating comorbid conditions (eg, depression, substance use disorders, or mood dysregulation), and improving adaptive functioning, which includes restoring a psychological sense of safety and trust. PTSD can be treated using evidence-based psychotherapies, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of both modalities. For adults, evidence-based treatment guidelines recommend the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy, cognitive processing therapy, cognitive therapy, and prolonged exposure therapy.² These guidelines also recommend (with some reservations) the use of brief eclectic psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and narrative exposure therapy.² Although the evidence base for the use of medications is not as strong as that for the psychotherapies listed above, the guidelines recommend the use of fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine.²

Currently available treatments for PTSD have significant limitations. For example, trauma-focused psychotherapies can have significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, or treatment dropout.^3,4 Additionally, such therapies are not widely accessible. As for pharmacotherapy, very few available options are supported by evidence, and the efficacy of these options is limited, as shown by the reports that only 60% of patients with PTSD show a response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and only 20% to 30% achieve complete remission.⁵ Additionally, it may take months for patients to achieve an acceptable level of improvement with medications. As a result, a substantial proportion of patients who seek treatment continue to remain symptomatic, with impaired levels of functioning. This lack of progress in PTSD treatment has been labeled as a national crisis, calling for an urgent need to find effective pharmacologic treatments for PTSD.⁶

In this article, we review 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for PTSD published within the last 5 years (Table^7-14).

1. Feder A, Costi S, Rutter SB, et al. A randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2021;178(2):193-202

Feder et al had previously found a significant and quick decrease in PTSD symptoms after a single dose of IV ketamine had. This is the first RCT to examine the effectiveness and safety of repeated IV ketamine infusions for the treatment of persistent PTSD.⁷ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm controlled trial treated 30 individuals with chronic PTSD with 6 infusions of either ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.045 mg/kg) over 2 consecutive weeks. 
• Participants were individuals age 18 to 70 with a primary diagnosis of chronic PTSD according to the DSM-5 criteria and determined by The Structure Clinical Interview for DSM-5, with a score ≥30 on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5).  
• Any severe or unstable medical condition, active suicidal or homicidal ideation, lifetime history of psychotic or bipolar disorder, current anorexia nervosa or bulimia, alcohol or substance use disorder within 3 months of screening, history of recreational ketamine or phencyclidine use on more than 1 occasion or any use in the previous 2 years, and ongoing treatment with a long-acting benzodiazepine or opioid medication were all considered exclusion criteria. Individuals who took short-acting benzodiazepines had their morning doses held on infusion days. Marijuana or cannabis derivatives were allowed. 
• The primary outcome measure was a change in PTSD symptom severity as measured with CAPS-5. This was administered before the first infusion and weekly thereafter. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised, the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and adverse effect measurements were used as secondary outcome measures. 
• Treatment response was defined as ≥30% symptom improvement 2 weeks after the first infusion as assessed with CAPS-5. 
• Individuals who responded to treatment were followed naturalistically weekly for up to 4 weeks and then monthly until loss of responder status, or up to 6 months if there was no loss of response. 

Outcomes

• At the second week, the mean CAPS-5 total score in the ketamine group was 11.88 points (SE = 3.96) lower than in the midazolam group (d = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.91).  
• In the ketamine group, 67% of patients responded to therapy, compared to 20% in the midazolam group.  
• Following the 2-week course of infusions, the median period until loss of response among ketamine responders was 27.5 days.  
• Ketamine infusions showed good tolerability and safety. There were no clinically significant adverse effects. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Repeated ketamine infusions are effective in reducing symptom severity in individuals with chronic PTSD. 
• Limitations to this study include the exclusion of individuals with comorbid bipolar disorder, current alcohol or substance use disorder, or suicidal ideations, the small sample size, and a higher rate of transient dissociative symptoms in the ketamine group. 
• Future studies could evaluate the efficacy of repeated ketamine infusions in individuals with treatment-resistant PTSD. Also, further studies are required to assess the efficacy of novel interventions to prevent relapse and evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of periodic IV ketamine use as maintenance.  
• Additional research might determine whether pairing psychotherapy with ketamine administration can lessen the risk of recurrence for PTSD patients after stopping ketamine infusions. 

2. Rauch SAM, Kim HM, Powell C, et al. Efficacy of prolonged exposure therapy, sertraline hydrochloride, and their combination among combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(2):117-126

Clinical practice recommendations for PTSD have identified trauma-focused psychotherapies and SSRIs as very effective treatments. The few studies that have compared trauma-focused psychotherapy to SSRIs or to a combination of treatments are not generalizable, have significant limitations, or are primarily concerned with refractory disorders or augmentation techniques. This study evaluated the efficacy of prolonged exposure therapy (PE) plus placebo, PE plus sertraline, and sertraline plus enhanced medication management in the treatment of PTSD.⁸ 

Study design

• This randomized, 4-site, 24-week clinical trial divided participants into 3 subgroups: PE plus placebo, PE plus sertraline, and sertraline plus enhanced medication management. 
• Participants were veterans or service members of the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars with combat-related PTSD and significant impairment as indicated by a CAPS score ≥50 for at least 3 months. The DSM-IV-TR version of CAPS was used because the DSM-5 version was not available at the time of the study.
• Individuals who had a current, imminent risk of suicide; active psychosis; alcohol or substance dependence in the past 8 weeks; inability to attend weekly appointments for the treatment period; prior intolerance to or failure of an adequate trial of PE or sertraline; medical illness likely to result in hospitalization or contraindication to study treatment; serious cognitive impairment; mild traumatic brain injury; or concurrent use of antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, prazosin, or sleep agents were excluded. 
• Participants completed up to thirteen 90-minute sessions of PE. 
• The sertraline dosage was titrated during a 10-week period and continued until Week 24. Dosages were adjusted between 50 and 200 mg/d, with the last dose increase at Week 10. 
• The primary outcome measure was symptom severity of PTSD in the past month as determined by CAPS score at Week 24.
• The secondary outcome was self-reported symptoms of PTSD (PTSD checklist [PCL] Specific Stressor Version), clinically meaningful change (reduction of ≥20 points or score ≤35 on CAPS), response (reduction of ≥50% in CAPS score), and remission (CAPS score ≤35). 

Outcomes

• At Week 24, 149 participants completed the study; 207 were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. 
• PTSD symptoms significantly decreased over 24 weeks, according to a modified intent-to-treat analysis utilizing a mixed model of repeated measurements; nevertheless, slopes were similar across therapy groups. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Although the severity of PTSD symptoms decreased in all 3 subgroups, there was no difference in PTSD symptom severity or change in symptoms at Week 24 among all 3 subgroups.  
• The main limitation of this study was the inclusion of only combat veterans. 
• Further research should focus on enhancing treatment retention and should include administering sustained exposure therapy at brief intervals. 

3. Lehrner A, Hildebrandt T, Bierer LM, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of hydrocortisone augmentation of prolonged exposure for PTSD in US combat veterans. Behav Res Ther. 2021;144:103924

First-line therapy for PTSD includes cognitive-behavioral therapies such as PE. However, because many people still have major adverse effects after receiving medication, improving treatment efficacy is a concern. Glucocorticoids promote extinction learning, and alterations in glucocorticoid signaling pathways have been associated with PTSD. Lehrner et al previously showed that adding hydrocortisone (HCORT) to PE therapy increased patients’ glucocorticoid sensitivity at baseline, improved treatment retention, and resulted in greater treatment improvements. This study evaluated HCORT in conjunction with PE for combat veterans with PTSD following deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.⁹ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial administered HCORT 30 mg oral or placebo to 96 combat veterans 30 minutes before PE sessions.  
• Participants were veterans previously deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq with deployment-related PTSD >6 months with a minimum CAPS score of 60. They were unmedicated or on a stable psychotropic regimen for ≥4 weeks. 
• Exclusion criteria included a lifetime history of a primary psychotic disorder (bipolar I disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder), medical or mental health condition other than PTSD that required immediate clinical attention, moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), substance abuse or dependence within the past 3 months, medical illness that contraindicated ingestion of hydrocortisone, acute suicide risk, and pregnancy or intent to become pregnant. 
• The primary outcome measures included PTSD severity as assessed with CAPS. 
• Secondary outcome measures included self-reported PTSD symptoms as assessed with the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) and depression as assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI). These scales were administered pretreatment, posttreatment, and at 3-months follow-up. 

Outcomes

• Out of 96 veterans enrolled, 60 were randomized and 52 completed the treatment.  
• Five participants were considered recovered early and completed <12 sessions.
• Of those who completed treatment, 50 completed the 1-week posttreatment evaluations and 49 completed the 3-month follow-up evaluation.
• There was no difference in the proportion of dropouts (13.33%) across the conditions.
• HCORT failed to significantly improve either secondary outcomes or PTSD symptoms, according to an intent-to-treat analysis.
• However, exploratory analyses revealed that veterans with recent post-concussive symptoms and moderate TBI exposure saw a larger decrease in hyperarousal symptoms after PE therapy with HCORT augmentation.  
• The reduction in avoidance symptoms with HCORT augmentation was also larger in veterans with higher baseline glucocorticoid sensitivity. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations 

• HCORT does not improve PTSD symptoms as assessed with the CAPS and PDS, or depression as assessed with the BDI. 
• The main limitation of this study is generalizability. 
• Further studies are needed to determine whether PE with HCORT could benefit veterans with indicators of enhanced glucocorticoid sensitivity, mild TBI, or postconcussive syndrome. 

4. Inslicht SS, Niles AN, Metzler TJ, et al. Randomized controlled experimental study of hydrocortisone and D-cycloserine effects on fear extinction in PTSD. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;47(11):1945-1952

PE, one of the most well-researched therapies for PTSD, is based on fear extinction. Exploring pharmacotherapies that improve fear extinction learning and their potential as supplements to PE is gaining increased attention. Such pharmacotherapies aim to improve the clinical impact of PE on the extent and persistence of symptom reduction. This study evaluated the effects of HCORT and D-cycloserine (DCS), a partial agonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, on the learning and consolidation of fear extinction in patients with PTSD.¹⁰ 

Study design

• This double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-group experimental design evaluated 90 individuals with PTSD who underwent fear conditioning with stimuli that was paired (CS+) or unpaired (CS−) with shock. 
• Participants were veterans and civilians age 18 to 65 recruited from VA outpatient and community clinics and internet advertisements who met the criteria for PTSD or subsyndromal PTSD (according to DSM-IV criteria) for at least 3 months. 
• Exclusion criteria included schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, substance abuse or dependence, alcohol dependence, previous moderate or severe head injury, seizure or neurological disorder, current infectious illness, systemic illness affecting CNS function, or other conditions known to affect psychophysiological responses. Excluded medications were antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, alpha- and beta-adrenergics, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, antihypertensives, sympathomimetics, anticholinergics, and steroids.  
• Extinction learning took place 72 hours after extinction, and extinction retention was evaluated 1 week later. Placebo, HCORT 25 mg, or DCS 50 mg was given 1 hour before extinction learning. 
• Clinical measures included PTSD diagnosis and symptom levels as determined by interview using CAPS and skin conduction response. 

Outcomes

• The mean shock level, mean pre-stimulus skin conductance level (SCL) during habituation, and mean SC orienting response during the habituation phase did not differ between groups and were not associated with differential fear conditioning. Therefore, variations in shock level preference, resting SCL, or SC orienting response magnitude are unlikely to account for differences between groups during extinction learning and retention.
• During extinction learning, the DCS and HCORT groups showed a reduced differential CS+/CS− skin conductance response (SCR) compared to placebo. 
• One week later, during the retention testing, there was a nonsignificant trend toward a smaller differential CS+/CS− SCR in the DCS group compared to placebo. HCORT and DCS administered as a single dosage facilitated fear extinction learning in individuals with PTSD symptoms. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations 

• In traumatized people with PTSD symptoms, a single dosage of HCORT or DCS enhanced the learning of fear extinction compared to placebo. A nonsignificant trend toward better extinction retention in the DCS group but not the HCORT group was also visible. 
• These results imply that glucocorticoids and NMDA agonists have the potential to promote extinction learning in PTSD. 
• Limitations include a lack of measures of glucocorticoid receptor sensitivity or FKBP5. 
• Further studies could evaluate these findings with the addition of blood biomarker measures such as glucocorticoid receptor sensitivity or FKBP5.  

5. Mitchell JM, Bogenschutz M, Lilienstein A, et al. MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):1025-1033. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01336-3

Poor PTSD treatment results are associated with numerous comorbid conditions, such as dissociation, depression, alcohol and substance use disorders, childhood trauma, and suicidal ideation, which frequently leads to treatment resistance. Therefore, it is crucial to find a treatment that works for individuals with PTSD who also have comorbid conditions. In animal models, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), an empathogen/entactogen with stimulant properties, has been shown to enhance fear memory extinction and modulate fear memory reconsolidation. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of MDMA-assisted therapy for treating patients with severe PTSD, including those with common comorbidities.¹¹ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-site, phase 3 clinical trial evaluated individuals randomized to receive manualized therapy with MDMA or with placebo, combined with 3 preparatory and 9 integrative therapy sessions.  
• Participants were 90 individuals (46 randomized to MDMA and 44 to placebo) with PTSD with a symptom duration ≥6 months and CAPS-5 total severity score ≥35 at baseline. 
• Exclusion criteria included primary psychotic disorder, bipolar I disorder, eating disorders with active purging, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, dissociative identity disorder, personality disorders, current alcohol and substance use disorders, lactation or pregnancy, and any condition that could make receiving a sympathomimetic medication dangerous due to hypertension or tachycardia, including uncontrolled hypertension, history of arrhythmia, or marked baseline prolongation of QT and/or QTc interval. 
• Three 8-hour experimental sessions of either therapy with MDMA assistance or therapy with a placebo control were given during the treatment period, and they were spaced approximately 4 weeks apart. 
• In each session, participants received placebo or a single divided dose of MDMA 80 to 180 mg. 
• At baseline and 2 months after the last experimental sessions, PTSD symptoms were measured with CAPS-5, and functional impairment was measured with Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). 
• The primary outcome measure was CAPS-5 total severity score at 18 weeks compared to baseline for MDMA-assisted therapy vs placebo-assisted therapy. 
• The secondary outcome measure was clinician-rated functional impairment using the mean difference in SDS total scores from baseline to 18 weeks for MDMA-assisted therapy vs placebo-assisted therapy. 

Outcomes

• MDMA was found to induce significant and robust attenuation in CAPS-5 score compared to placebo. 
• The mean change in CAPS-5 score in completers was –24.4 in the MDMA group and –13.9 in the placebo group. 
• MDMA significantly decreased the SDS total score. 
• MDMA did not induce suicidality, misuse, or QT prolongation. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• MDMA-assisted therapy is significantly more effective than manualized therapy with placebo in treating patients with severe PTSD, and it is also safe and well-tolerated, even in individuals with comorbidities. 
• No major safety issues were associated with MDMA-assisted treatment. 
• MDMA-assisted therapy should be promptly assessed for clinical usage because it has the potential to significantly transform the way PTSD is treated. 
• Limitations of this study include a smaller sample size (due to the COVID-19 pandemic); lack of ethnic and racial diversity; short duration; safety data were collected by site therapist, which limited the blinding; and the blinding of participants was difficult due to the subjective effects of MDMA, which could have resulted in expectation effects. 

6. Bonn-Miller MO, Sisley S, Riggs P, et al. The short-term impact of 3 smoked cannabis preparations versus placebo on PTSD symptoms: a randomized cross-over clinical trial. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0246990

Sertraline and paroxetine are the only FDA-approved medications for treating PTSD. Some evidence suggests cannabis may provide a therapeutic benefit for PTSD.¹⁵ This study examined the effects of 3 different preparations of cannabis for treating PTSD symptoms.¹²  

Study design

• This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial used 3 active treatment groups of cannabis: high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)/low cannabidiol (CBD), high CBD/low THC, and high THC/high CBD (THC+CBD). A low THC/low CBD preparation was used as a placebo. “High” content contained 9% to 15% concentration by weight of the respective cannabinoid, and “low” content contained <2% concentration by weight.  
• Inclusion criteria included being a US military veteran, meeting DSM-5 PTSD criteria for ≥6 months, having moderate symptom severity (CAPS-5 score ≥25), abstaining from cannabis 2 weeks prior to study and agreeing not to use any non-study cannabis during the trial, and being stable on medications/therapy prior to the study.  
• Exclusion criteria included women who were pregnant/nursing/child-bearing age and not taking an effective means of birth control; current/past serious mental illness, including psychotic and personality disorders; having a first-degree relative with a psychotic or bipolar disorder; having a high suicide risk based on Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale; meeting DSM-5 criteria for moderate-severe cannabis use disorder; screening positive for illicit substances; or having significant medical disease.  
• Participants in Stage 1 (n = 80) were randomized to 1 of the 3 active treatments or placebo for 3 weeks. After a 2-week washout, participants in Stage 2 (n = 74) were randomized to receive for 3 weeks 1 of the 3 active treatments they had not previously received.
• During each stage, participants had ad libitum use for a maximum of 1.8 g/d. 
• The primary outcome was change in PTSD symptom severity by the end of Stage 1 as assessed with CAPS-5.
• Secondary outcomes included the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), the general depression subscale and anxiety subscale from the self-report Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS), the Inventory of Psychosocial Functioning, and the Insomnia Severity Index. 

Outcomes

• Six participants did not continue to Stage 2. Three participants did not finish Stage 2 due to adverse effects, and 7 did not complete outcome measurements. The overall attrition rate was 16.3%. 
• There was no significant difference in total grams of smoked cannabis or placebo between the 4 treatment groups in Stage 1 at the end of 3 weeks. In Stage 2, there was a significant difference, with the THC+CBD group using more cannabis compared to the other 2 groups. 
• Each of the 4 groups had significant reductions in total CAPS-5 scores at the end of Stage 1, and there was no significant difference in CAPS-5 severity scores between the 4 groups.
• In Stage 1, PCL-5 scores were not significantly different between treatment groups from baseline to the end of stage. There was a significant difference in Stage 2 between the high CBD and THC+CBD groups, with the combined group reporting greater improvement of symptoms. 
• In Stage 2, the THC+CBD group reported greater reductions in pre/post IDAS social anxiety scores and IDAS general depression scores, and the high THC group reported greater reductions in pre/post IDAS social anxiety scores. 
• In Stage 1, 37 of 60 participants in the active groups reported at least 1 adverse event, and 45 of the 74 Stage 2 participants reported at least 1 adverse event. The most common adverse events were cough, throat irritation, and anxiety. Participants in the Stage 1 high THC group had a significant increase in reported withdrawal symptoms after 1 week of stopping use.  

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• This first randomized, placebo-control trial of cannabis in US veterans did not show a significant difference among treatment groups, including placebo, on the primary outcome of CAPS-5 score. All 4 groups had significant reductions in symptom severity on CAPS-5 and showed good tolerability.
• Prior beliefs about the effects of cannabis may have played a role in the reduction of PTSD symptoms in the placebo group.
• Many participants (n =34) were positive for THC during the screening process, so previous cannabis use/chronicity of cannabis use may have contributed.
• One limitation was that participants assigned to the Stage 1 high THC group had Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test scores (which assesses cannabis use disorder risk) about 2 times greater than participants in other conditions.
• Another limitation was that total cannabis use was lower than expected, as participants in Stage 1 used 8.2 g to 14.6 g over 3 weeks, though they had access to up to 37.8 g. 
• There was no placebo in Stage 2.
• Future studies should look at longer treatment periods with more participants.

7. Youngstedt SD, Kline CE, Reynolds AM, et al. Bright light treatment of combat-related PTSD: a randomized controlled trial. Milit Med. 2022;187(3-4):e435-e444

Bright light therapy is an inexpensive treatment approach that may affect serotonergic pathways.¹⁶ This study examined bright light therapy for reducing PTSD symptoms and examined if improvement of PTSD is related to a shift in circadian rhythm.¹³  

Study design

• Veterans with combat-related PTSD had to have been stable on treatment for at least 8 weeks or to have not received any other PTSD treatments prior to the study.
• Participants were randomized to active treatment of 30 minutes daily 10,000 lux ultraviolet-filtered white light while sitting within 18 inches (n = 34) or a control condition of 30 minutes daily inactivated negative ion generator (n = 35) for 4 weeks.
• Inclusion criteria included a CAPS score ≥30.
•  Exclusion criteria included high suicidality, high probability of alcohol/substance abuse in the past 3 months, bipolar disorder/mania/schizophrenia/psychosis, ophthalmologic deformities, shift work in past 2 months or travel across time zones in past 2 weeks, head trauma, high outdoor light exposure, history of winter depression, history of seizures, or myocardial infarction/stroke/cancer within 3 years.
• Primary outcomes were improvement on CAPS and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-IM) score at Week 4.
• Wrist actigraphy recordings measured sleep.
• Other measurements included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton atypical symptoms (HAM-AS), PCL-Military (PCL-M), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), BDI, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form Y-2), Beck Suicide Scale, and Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Effects questionnaire.

Outcomes

• There was a significant decrease in CAPS score in participants who received bright light therapy compared to controls. Treatment response (defined as ≥33% reduction in score) was significantly greater in the bright light (44%) vs control (8.6%) group. No participants achieved remission. 
• There was a significant improvement in CGI-IM scores in the bright light group, but no significant difference in participants who were judged to improve “much” or “very much.”
• PCL-M scores did not change significantly between groups, although a significantly greater proportion of participants had treatment response in the bright light group (33%) vs control (6%).
• There were no significant changes in HAM-D, HAM-AS, STAI, BDI, actigraphic estimates of sleep, or PSQI scores. 
• Bright light therapy resulted in phase advancement while control treatment had phase delay. 
• There were no significant differences in adverse effects. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Bright light therapy may be a treatment option or adjunct for combat-related PTSD as seen by improvement on CAPS and CGI scores, as well as a greater treatment response seen on CAPS and PCL-5 scores in the bright light group.  
• There was no significant difference for other measures, including depression, anxiety, and sleep.  
• Limitations include excluding patients with a wide variety of medical or psychiatric comorbidities, as well as limited long-term follow up data.  
• Other limitations include not knowing the precise amount of time participants stayed in front of the light device and loss of some actigraphic data (data from only 49 of 69 participants).  

8. Peterson AL, Mintz J, Moring JC, et al. In-office, in-home, and telehealth cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22(1):41 doi:10.1186/s12888-022-03699-4

Cognitive processing therapy (CPT), a type of trauma-focused psychotherapy, is an effective treatment for PTSD in the military population.^17,18 However, patients may not be able to or want to participate in such therapy due to barriers such as difficulty arranging transportation, being homebound due to injury, concerns about COVID-19, stigma, familial obligations, and job constraints. This study looked at if CPT delivered face-to-face at the patient’s home or via telehealth in home would be effective and increase accessibility.¹⁴  

Study design

• Participants (n = 120) were active-duty military and veterans who met DSM-5 criteria for PTSD. They were randomized to receive CPT in the office, in their home, or via telehealth. Participants could choose not to partake in 1 modality but were then randomized to 1 of the other 2. 
• Exclusion criteria included suicide/homicide risk needing intervention, items/situations pertaining to danger (ie, aggressive pet or unsafe neighborhood), significant alcohol/substance use, active psychosis, and impaired cognitive functioning. 
• The primary outcome measurement was change in PCL-5 and CAPS-5 score over 6 months. The BDI-II was used to assess depressive symptoms.  
• Secondary outcomes included the Reliable Change Index (defined as “an improvement of 10 or more points that was sustained at all subsequent assessments”) on the PCL-5 and remission on the CAPS-5.
• CPT was delivered in 60-minute sessions twice a week for 6 weeks. Participants who did not have electronic resources were loaned a telehealth apparatus. 

Outcomes

• Overall, 57% of participants opted out of 1 modality, which resulted in fewer participants being placed into the in-home arm (n = 32). Most participants chose not to do in-home treatments (54%), followed by in-office (29%), and telehealth (17%). 
• There was a significant posttreatment improvement in PCL-5 scores in all treatment arms, with improvement greater with in-home (d = 2.1) and telehealth (d = 2.0) vs in-office (d=1.3). The in-home and telehealth scores were significantly improved compared to in-office, and the difference between in-home and telehealth PCL-5 scores was minimal.
• At 6 months posttreatment, the differences between the 3 treatment groups on PCL-5 score were negligible. 
• CAPS-5 scores were significantly improved in all treatment arms, with improvement largest with in-home treatment; however, the differences between the groups were not significant.  
• BDI-II scores improved in all modalities but were larger in the in-home (d = 1.2) and telehealth (d = 1.1) arms than the in-office arm (d = 0.52). 
• Therapist time commitment was greater for the in-home and in-office arms (2 hours/session) than the telehealth arm (1 hour/session). This difference was due to commuting time for the patient or therapist.
• The dropout rate was not statistically significant between the groups.
• Adverse events did not significantly differ per group. The most commonly reported ones included nightmares, sleep difficulty, depression, anxiety, and irritability.

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients undergoing CPT had significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, with posttreatment PCL-5 improvement approximately twice as large in those who received the in-home and telehealth modalities vs in-office treatment. 
• The group differences were not seen on CAPS-5 scores at posttreatment, or PCL-5 or CAPS-5 scores at 6 months posttreatment.  
• In-home CPT was declined the most, which suggests that in-home distractions or the stigma of a mental health clinician being in their home played a role in patients’ decision-making. However, in-home CPT produced the greatest amount of improvement in PTSD symptoms. The authors concluded that in-home therapy should be reserved for those who are homebound or have travel limitations.  
• This study shows evidence that telehealth may be a good modality for CPT, as seen by improvement in PTSD symptoms and good acceptability and retention. 
• Limitations include more patients opting out of in-home CPT, and reimbursement for travel may not be available in the real-world setting.  

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a chronic and disabling psychiatric disorder. The lifetime prevalence among American adults is 6.8%.¹ Management of PTSD includes treating distressing symptoms, reducing avoidant behaviors, treating comorbid conditions (eg, depression, substance use disorders, or mood dysregulation), and improving adaptive functioning, which includes restoring a psychological sense of safety and trust. PTSD can be treated using evidence-based psychotherapies, pharmacotherapy, or a combination of both modalities. For adults, evidence-based treatment guidelines recommend the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy, cognitive processing therapy, cognitive therapy, and prolonged exposure therapy.² These guidelines also recommend (with some reservations) the use of brief eclectic psychotherapy, eye movement desensitization and reprocessing, and narrative exposure therapy.² Although the evidence base for the use of medications is not as strong as that for the psychotherapies listed above, the guidelines recommend the use of fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine.²

Currently available treatments for PTSD have significant limitations. For example, trauma-focused psychotherapies can have significant rates of nonresponse, partial response, or treatment dropout.^3,4 Additionally, such therapies are not widely accessible. As for pharmacotherapy, very few available options are supported by evidence, and the efficacy of these options is limited, as shown by the reports that only 60% of patients with PTSD show a response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and only 20% to 30% achieve complete remission.⁵ Additionally, it may take months for patients to achieve an acceptable level of improvement with medications. As a result, a substantial proportion of patients who seek treatment continue to remain symptomatic, with impaired levels of functioning. This lack of progress in PTSD treatment has been labeled as a national crisis, calling for an urgent need to find effective pharmacologic treatments for PTSD.⁶

In this article, we review 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments for PTSD published within the last 5 years (Table^7-14).

1. Feder A, Costi S, Rutter SB, et al. A randomized controlled trial of repeated ketamine administration for chronic posttraumatic stress disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2021;178(2):193-202

Feder et al had previously found a significant and quick decrease in PTSD symptoms after a single dose of IV ketamine had. This is the first RCT to examine the effectiveness and safety of repeated IV ketamine infusions for the treatment of persistent PTSD.⁷ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm controlled trial treated 30 individuals with chronic PTSD with 6 infusions of either ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or midazolam (0.045 mg/kg) over 2 consecutive weeks. 
• Participants were individuals age 18 to 70 with a primary diagnosis of chronic PTSD according to the DSM-5 criteria and determined by The Structure Clinical Interview for DSM-5, with a score ≥30 on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5).  
• Any severe or unstable medical condition, active suicidal or homicidal ideation, lifetime history of psychotic or bipolar disorder, current anorexia nervosa or bulimia, alcohol or substance use disorder within 3 months of screening, history of recreational ketamine or phencyclidine use on more than 1 occasion or any use in the previous 2 years, and ongoing treatment with a long-acting benzodiazepine or opioid medication were all considered exclusion criteria. Individuals who took short-acting benzodiazepines had their morning doses held on infusion days. Marijuana or cannabis derivatives were allowed. 
• The primary outcome measure was a change in PTSD symptom severity as measured with CAPS-5. This was administered before the first infusion and weekly thereafter. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised, the Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and adverse effect measurements were used as secondary outcome measures. 
• Treatment response was defined as ≥30% symptom improvement 2 weeks after the first infusion as assessed with CAPS-5. 
• Individuals who responded to treatment were followed naturalistically weekly for up to 4 weeks and then monthly until loss of responder status, or up to 6 months if there was no loss of response. 

Outcomes

• At the second week, the mean CAPS-5 total score in the ketamine group was 11.88 points (SE = 3.96) lower than in the midazolam group (d = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.91).  
• In the ketamine group, 67% of patients responded to therapy, compared to 20% in the midazolam group.  
• Following the 2-week course of infusions, the median period until loss of response among ketamine responders was 27.5 days.  
• Ketamine infusions showed good tolerability and safety. There were no clinically significant adverse effects. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Repeated ketamine infusions are effective in reducing symptom severity in individuals with chronic PTSD. 
• Limitations to this study include the exclusion of individuals with comorbid bipolar disorder, current alcohol or substance use disorder, or suicidal ideations, the small sample size, and a higher rate of transient dissociative symptoms in the ketamine group. 
• Future studies could evaluate the efficacy of repeated ketamine infusions in individuals with treatment-resistant PTSD. Also, further studies are required to assess the efficacy of novel interventions to prevent relapse and evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of periodic IV ketamine use as maintenance.  
• Additional research might determine whether pairing psychotherapy with ketamine administration can lessen the risk of recurrence for PTSD patients after stopping ketamine infusions. 

2. Rauch SAM, Kim HM, Powell C, et al. Efficacy of prolonged exposure therapy, sertraline hydrochloride, and their combination among combat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. 2019;76(2):117-126

Clinical practice recommendations for PTSD have identified trauma-focused psychotherapies and SSRIs as very effective treatments. The few studies that have compared trauma-focused psychotherapy to SSRIs or to a combination of treatments are not generalizable, have significant limitations, or are primarily concerned with refractory disorders or augmentation techniques. This study evaluated the efficacy of prolonged exposure therapy (PE) plus placebo, PE plus sertraline, and sertraline plus enhanced medication management in the treatment of PTSD.⁸ 

Study design

• This randomized, 4-site, 24-week clinical trial divided participants into 3 subgroups: PE plus placebo, PE plus sertraline, and sertraline plus enhanced medication management. 
• Participants were veterans or service members of the Iraq and/or Afghanistan wars with combat-related PTSD and significant impairment as indicated by a CAPS score ≥50 for at least 3 months. The DSM-IV-TR version of CAPS was used because the DSM-5 version was not available at the time of the study.
• Individuals who had a current, imminent risk of suicide; active psychosis; alcohol or substance dependence in the past 8 weeks; inability to attend weekly appointments for the treatment period; prior intolerance to or failure of an adequate trial of PE or sertraline; medical illness likely to result in hospitalization or contraindication to study treatment; serious cognitive impairment; mild traumatic brain injury; or concurrent use of antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, prazosin, or sleep agents were excluded. 
• Participants completed up to thirteen 90-minute sessions of PE. 
• The sertraline dosage was titrated during a 10-week period and continued until Week 24. Dosages were adjusted between 50 and 200 mg/d, with the last dose increase at Week 10. 
• The primary outcome measure was symptom severity of PTSD in the past month as determined by CAPS score at Week 24.
• The secondary outcome was self-reported symptoms of PTSD (PTSD checklist [PCL] Specific Stressor Version), clinically meaningful change (reduction of ≥20 points or score ≤35 on CAPS), response (reduction of ≥50% in CAPS score), and remission (CAPS score ≤35). 

Outcomes

• At Week 24, 149 participants completed the study; 207 were included in the intent-to-treat analysis. 
• PTSD symptoms significantly decreased over 24 weeks, according to a modified intent-to-treat analysis utilizing a mixed model of repeated measurements; nevertheless, slopes were similar across therapy groups. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Although the severity of PTSD symptoms decreased in all 3 subgroups, there was no difference in PTSD symptom severity or change in symptoms at Week 24 among all 3 subgroups.  
• The main limitation of this study was the inclusion of only combat veterans. 
• Further research should focus on enhancing treatment retention and should include administering sustained exposure therapy at brief intervals. 

3. Lehrner A, Hildebrandt T, Bierer LM, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of hydrocortisone augmentation of prolonged exposure for PTSD in US combat veterans. Behav Res Ther. 2021;144:103924

First-line therapy for PTSD includes cognitive-behavioral therapies such as PE. However, because many people still have major adverse effects after receiving medication, improving treatment efficacy is a concern. Glucocorticoids promote extinction learning, and alterations in glucocorticoid signaling pathways have been associated with PTSD. Lehrner et al previously showed that adding hydrocortisone (HCORT) to PE therapy increased patients’ glucocorticoid sensitivity at baseline, improved treatment retention, and resulted in greater treatment improvements. This study evaluated HCORT in conjunction with PE for combat veterans with PTSD following deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.⁹ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial administered HCORT 30 mg oral or placebo to 96 combat veterans 30 minutes before PE sessions.  
• Participants were veterans previously deployed to Afghanistan or Iraq with deployment-related PTSD >6 months with a minimum CAPS score of 60. They were unmedicated or on a stable psychotropic regimen for ≥4 weeks. 
• Exclusion criteria included a lifetime history of a primary psychotic disorder (bipolar I disorder or obsessive-compulsive disorder), medical or mental health condition other than PTSD that required immediate clinical attention, moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), substance abuse or dependence within the past 3 months, medical illness that contraindicated ingestion of hydrocortisone, acute suicide risk, and pregnancy or intent to become pregnant. 
• The primary outcome measures included PTSD severity as assessed with CAPS. 
• Secondary outcome measures included self-reported PTSD symptoms as assessed with the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) and depression as assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI). These scales were administered pretreatment, posttreatment, and at 3-months follow-up. 

Outcomes

• Out of 96 veterans enrolled, 60 were randomized and 52 completed the treatment.  
• Five participants were considered recovered early and completed <12 sessions.
• Of those who completed treatment, 50 completed the 1-week posttreatment evaluations and 49 completed the 3-month follow-up evaluation.
• There was no difference in the proportion of dropouts (13.33%) across the conditions.
• HCORT failed to significantly improve either secondary outcomes or PTSD symptoms, according to an intent-to-treat analysis.
• However, exploratory analyses revealed that veterans with recent post-concussive symptoms and moderate TBI exposure saw a larger decrease in hyperarousal symptoms after PE therapy with HCORT augmentation.  
• The reduction in avoidance symptoms with HCORT augmentation was also larger in veterans with higher baseline glucocorticoid sensitivity. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations 

• HCORT does not improve PTSD symptoms as assessed with the CAPS and PDS, or depression as assessed with the BDI. 
• The main limitation of this study is generalizability. 
• Further studies are needed to determine whether PE with HCORT could benefit veterans with indicators of enhanced glucocorticoid sensitivity, mild TBI, or postconcussive syndrome. 

4. Inslicht SS, Niles AN, Metzler TJ, et al. Randomized controlled experimental study of hydrocortisone and D-cycloserine effects on fear extinction in PTSD. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;47(11):1945-1952

PE, one of the most well-researched therapies for PTSD, is based on fear extinction. Exploring pharmacotherapies that improve fear extinction learning and their potential as supplements to PE is gaining increased attention. Such pharmacotherapies aim to improve the clinical impact of PE on the extent and persistence of symptom reduction. This study evaluated the effects of HCORT and D-cycloserine (DCS), a partial agonist of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor, on the learning and consolidation of fear extinction in patients with PTSD.¹⁰ 

Study design

• This double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-group experimental design evaluated 90 individuals with PTSD who underwent fear conditioning with stimuli that was paired (CS+) or unpaired (CS−) with shock. 
• Participants were veterans and civilians age 18 to 65 recruited from VA outpatient and community clinics and internet advertisements who met the criteria for PTSD or subsyndromal PTSD (according to DSM-IV criteria) for at least 3 months. 
• Exclusion criteria included schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, substance abuse or dependence, alcohol dependence, previous moderate or severe head injury, seizure or neurological disorder, current infectious illness, systemic illness affecting CNS function, or other conditions known to affect psychophysiological responses. Excluded medications were antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, alpha- and beta-adrenergics, benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, antihypertensives, sympathomimetics, anticholinergics, and steroids.  
• Extinction learning took place 72 hours after extinction, and extinction retention was evaluated 1 week later. Placebo, HCORT 25 mg, or DCS 50 mg was given 1 hour before extinction learning. 
• Clinical measures included PTSD diagnosis and symptom levels as determined by interview using CAPS and skin conduction response. 

Outcomes

• The mean shock level, mean pre-stimulus skin conductance level (SCL) during habituation, and mean SC orienting response during the habituation phase did not differ between groups and were not associated with differential fear conditioning. Therefore, variations in shock level preference, resting SCL, or SC orienting response magnitude are unlikely to account for differences between groups during extinction learning and retention.
• During extinction learning, the DCS and HCORT groups showed a reduced differential CS+/CS− skin conductance response (SCR) compared to placebo. 
• One week later, during the retention testing, there was a nonsignificant trend toward a smaller differential CS+/CS− SCR in the DCS group compared to placebo. HCORT and DCS administered as a single dosage facilitated fear extinction learning in individuals with PTSD symptoms. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

Conclusions/limitations 

• In traumatized people with PTSD symptoms, a single dosage of HCORT or DCS enhanced the learning of fear extinction compared to placebo. A nonsignificant trend toward better extinction retention in the DCS group but not the HCORT group was also visible. 
• These results imply that glucocorticoids and NMDA agonists have the potential to promote extinction learning in PTSD. 
• Limitations include a lack of measures of glucocorticoid receptor sensitivity or FKBP5. 
• Further studies could evaluate these findings with the addition of blood biomarker measures such as glucocorticoid receptor sensitivity or FKBP5.  

5. Mitchell JM, Bogenschutz M, Lilienstein A, et al. MDMA-assisted therapy for severe PTSD: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 study. Nat Med. 2021;27(6):1025-1033. doi:10.1038/s41591-021-01336-3

Poor PTSD treatment results are associated with numerous comorbid conditions, such as dissociation, depression, alcohol and substance use disorders, childhood trauma, and suicidal ideation, which frequently leads to treatment resistance. Therefore, it is crucial to find a treatment that works for individuals with PTSD who also have comorbid conditions. In animal models, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), an empathogen/entactogen with stimulant properties, has been shown to enhance fear memory extinction and modulate fear memory reconsolidation. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of MDMA-assisted therapy for treating patients with severe PTSD, including those with common comorbidities.¹¹ 

Study design

• This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-site, phase 3 clinical trial evaluated individuals randomized to receive manualized therapy with MDMA or with placebo, combined with 3 preparatory and 9 integrative therapy sessions.  
• Participants were 90 individuals (46 randomized to MDMA and 44 to placebo) with PTSD with a symptom duration ≥6 months and CAPS-5 total severity score ≥35 at baseline. 
• Exclusion criteria included primary psychotic disorder, bipolar I disorder, eating disorders with active purging, major depressive disorder with psychotic features, dissociative identity disorder, personality disorders, current alcohol and substance use disorders, lactation or pregnancy, and any condition that could make receiving a sympathomimetic medication dangerous due to hypertension or tachycardia, including uncontrolled hypertension, history of arrhythmia, or marked baseline prolongation of QT and/or QTc interval. 
• Three 8-hour experimental sessions of either therapy with MDMA assistance or therapy with a placebo control were given during the treatment period, and they were spaced approximately 4 weeks apart. 
• In each session, participants received placebo or a single divided dose of MDMA 80 to 180 mg. 
• At baseline and 2 months after the last experimental sessions, PTSD symptoms were measured with CAPS-5, and functional impairment was measured with Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). 
• The primary outcome measure was CAPS-5 total severity score at 18 weeks compared to baseline for MDMA-assisted therapy vs placebo-assisted therapy. 
• The secondary outcome measure was clinician-rated functional impairment using the mean difference in SDS total scores from baseline to 18 weeks for MDMA-assisted therapy vs placebo-assisted therapy. 

Outcomes

• MDMA was found to induce significant and robust attenuation in CAPS-5 score compared to placebo. 
• The mean change in CAPS-5 score in completers was –24.4 in the MDMA group and –13.9 in the placebo group. 
• MDMA significantly decreased the SDS total score. 
• MDMA did not induce suicidality, misuse, or QT prolongation. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• MDMA-assisted therapy is significantly more effective than manualized therapy with placebo in treating patients with severe PTSD, and it is also safe and well-tolerated, even in individuals with comorbidities. 
• No major safety issues were associated with MDMA-assisted treatment. 
• MDMA-assisted therapy should be promptly assessed for clinical usage because it has the potential to significantly transform the way PTSD is treated. 
• Limitations of this study include a smaller sample size (due to the COVID-19 pandemic); lack of ethnic and racial diversity; short duration; safety data were collected by site therapist, which limited the blinding; and the blinding of participants was difficult due to the subjective effects of MDMA, which could have resulted in expectation effects. 

6. Bonn-Miller MO, Sisley S, Riggs P, et al. The short-term impact of 3 smoked cannabis preparations versus placebo on PTSD symptoms: a randomized cross-over clinical trial. PLoS One. 2021;16(3):e0246990

Sertraline and paroxetine are the only FDA-approved medications for treating PTSD. Some evidence suggests cannabis may provide a therapeutic benefit for PTSD.¹⁵ This study examined the effects of 3 different preparations of cannabis for treating PTSD symptoms.¹²  

Study design

• This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial used 3 active treatment groups of cannabis: high delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)/low cannabidiol (CBD), high CBD/low THC, and high THC/high CBD (THC+CBD). A low THC/low CBD preparation was used as a placebo. “High” content contained 9% to 15% concentration by weight of the respective cannabinoid, and “low” content contained <2% concentration by weight.  
• Inclusion criteria included being a US military veteran, meeting DSM-5 PTSD criteria for ≥6 months, having moderate symptom severity (CAPS-5 score ≥25), abstaining from cannabis 2 weeks prior to study and agreeing not to use any non-study cannabis during the trial, and being stable on medications/therapy prior to the study.  
• Exclusion criteria included women who were pregnant/nursing/child-bearing age and not taking an effective means of birth control; current/past serious mental illness, including psychotic and personality disorders; having a first-degree relative with a psychotic or bipolar disorder; having a high suicide risk based on Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale; meeting DSM-5 criteria for moderate-severe cannabis use disorder; screening positive for illicit substances; or having significant medical disease.  
• Participants in Stage 1 (n = 80) were randomized to 1 of the 3 active treatments or placebo for 3 weeks. After a 2-week washout, participants in Stage 2 (n = 74) were randomized to receive for 3 weeks 1 of the 3 active treatments they had not previously received.
• During each stage, participants had ad libitum use for a maximum of 1.8 g/d. 
• The primary outcome was change in PTSD symptom severity by the end of Stage 1 as assessed with CAPS-5.
• Secondary outcomes included the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), the general depression subscale and anxiety subscale from the self-report Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS), the Inventory of Psychosocial Functioning, and the Insomnia Severity Index. 

Outcomes

• Six participants did not continue to Stage 2. Three participants did not finish Stage 2 due to adverse effects, and 7 did not complete outcome measurements. The overall attrition rate was 16.3%. 
• There was no significant difference in total grams of smoked cannabis or placebo between the 4 treatment groups in Stage 1 at the end of 3 weeks. In Stage 2, there was a significant difference, with the THC+CBD group using more cannabis compared to the other 2 groups. 
• Each of the 4 groups had significant reductions in total CAPS-5 scores at the end of Stage 1, and there was no significant difference in CAPS-5 severity scores between the 4 groups.
• In Stage 1, PCL-5 scores were not significantly different between treatment groups from baseline to the end of stage. There was a significant difference in Stage 2 between the high CBD and THC+CBD groups, with the combined group reporting greater improvement of symptoms. 
• In Stage 2, the THC+CBD group reported greater reductions in pre/post IDAS social anxiety scores and IDAS general depression scores, and the high THC group reported greater reductions in pre/post IDAS social anxiety scores. 
• In Stage 1, 37 of 60 participants in the active groups reported at least 1 adverse event, and 45 of the 74 Stage 2 participants reported at least 1 adverse event. The most common adverse events were cough, throat irritation, and anxiety. Participants in the Stage 1 high THC group had a significant increase in reported withdrawal symptoms after 1 week of stopping use.  

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• This first randomized, placebo-control trial of cannabis in US veterans did not show a significant difference among treatment groups, including placebo, on the primary outcome of CAPS-5 score. All 4 groups had significant reductions in symptom severity on CAPS-5 and showed good tolerability.
• Prior beliefs about the effects of cannabis may have played a role in the reduction of PTSD symptoms in the placebo group.
• Many participants (n =34) were positive for THC during the screening process, so previous cannabis use/chronicity of cannabis use may have contributed.
• One limitation was that participants assigned to the Stage 1 high THC group had Cannabis Use Disorders Identification Test scores (which assesses cannabis use disorder risk) about 2 times greater than participants in other conditions.
• Another limitation was that total cannabis use was lower than expected, as participants in Stage 1 used 8.2 g to 14.6 g over 3 weeks, though they had access to up to 37.8 g. 
• There was no placebo in Stage 2.
• Future studies should look at longer treatment periods with more participants.

7. Youngstedt SD, Kline CE, Reynolds AM, et al. Bright light treatment of combat-related PTSD: a randomized controlled trial. Milit Med. 2022;187(3-4):e435-e444

Bright light therapy is an inexpensive treatment approach that may affect serotonergic pathways.¹⁶ This study examined bright light therapy for reducing PTSD symptoms and examined if improvement of PTSD is related to a shift in circadian rhythm.¹³  

Study design

• Veterans with combat-related PTSD had to have been stable on treatment for at least 8 weeks or to have not received any other PTSD treatments prior to the study.
• Participants were randomized to active treatment of 30 minutes daily 10,000 lux ultraviolet-filtered white light while sitting within 18 inches (n = 34) or a control condition of 30 minutes daily inactivated negative ion generator (n = 35) for 4 weeks.
• Inclusion criteria included a CAPS score ≥30.
•  Exclusion criteria included high suicidality, high probability of alcohol/substance abuse in the past 3 months, bipolar disorder/mania/schizophrenia/psychosis, ophthalmologic deformities, shift work in past 2 months or travel across time zones in past 2 weeks, head trauma, high outdoor light exposure, history of winter depression, history of seizures, or myocardial infarction/stroke/cancer within 3 years.
• Primary outcomes were improvement on CAPS and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-IM) score at Week 4.
• Wrist actigraphy recordings measured sleep.
• Other measurements included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D), Hamilton atypical symptoms (HAM-AS), PCL-Military (PCL-M), Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), BDI, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI Form Y-2), Beck Suicide Scale, and Systematic Assessment for Treatment Emergent Effects questionnaire.

Outcomes

• There was a significant decrease in CAPS score in participants who received bright light therapy compared to controls. Treatment response (defined as ≥33% reduction in score) was significantly greater in the bright light (44%) vs control (8.6%) group. No participants achieved remission. 
• There was a significant improvement in CGI-IM scores in the bright light group, but no significant difference in participants who were judged to improve “much” or “very much.”
• PCL-M scores did not change significantly between groups, although a significantly greater proportion of participants had treatment response in the bright light group (33%) vs control (6%).
• There were no significant changes in HAM-D, HAM-AS, STAI, BDI, actigraphic estimates of sleep, or PSQI scores. 
• Bright light therapy resulted in phase advancement while control treatment had phase delay. 
• There were no significant differences in adverse effects. 

Continue to: Conclusions/limitations

• Bright light therapy may be a treatment option or adjunct for combat-related PTSD as seen by improvement on CAPS and CGI scores, as well as a greater treatment response seen on CAPS and PCL-5 scores in the bright light group.  
• There was no significant difference for other measures, including depression, anxiety, and sleep.  
• Limitations include excluding patients with a wide variety of medical or psychiatric comorbidities, as well as limited long-term follow up data.  
• Other limitations include not knowing the precise amount of time participants stayed in front of the light device and loss of some actigraphic data (data from only 49 of 69 participants).  

8. Peterson AL, Mintz J, Moring JC, et al. In-office, in-home, and telehealth cognitive processing therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22(1):41 doi:10.1186/s12888-022-03699-4

Cognitive processing therapy (CPT), a type of trauma-focused psychotherapy, is an effective treatment for PTSD in the military population.^17,18 However, patients may not be able to or want to participate in such therapy due to barriers such as difficulty arranging transportation, being homebound due to injury, concerns about COVID-19, stigma, familial obligations, and job constraints. This study looked at if CPT delivered face-to-face at the patient’s home or via telehealth in home would be effective and increase accessibility.¹⁴  

Study design

• Participants (n = 120) were active-duty military and veterans who met DSM-5 criteria for PTSD. They were randomized to receive CPT in the office, in their home, or via telehealth. Participants could choose not to partake in 1 modality but were then randomized to 1 of the other 2. 
• Exclusion criteria included suicide/homicide risk needing intervention, items/situations pertaining to danger (ie, aggressive pet or unsafe neighborhood), significant alcohol/substance use, active psychosis, and impaired cognitive functioning. 
• The primary outcome measurement was change in PCL-5 and CAPS-5 score over 6 months. The BDI-II was used to assess depressive symptoms.  
• Secondary outcomes included the Reliable Change Index (defined as “an improvement of 10 or more points that was sustained at all subsequent assessments”) on the PCL-5 and remission on the CAPS-5.
• CPT was delivered in 60-minute sessions twice a week for 6 weeks. Participants who did not have electronic resources were loaned a telehealth apparatus. 

Outcomes

• Overall, 57% of participants opted out of 1 modality, which resulted in fewer participants being placed into the in-home arm (n = 32). Most participants chose not to do in-home treatments (54%), followed by in-office (29%), and telehealth (17%). 
• There was a significant posttreatment improvement in PCL-5 scores in all treatment arms, with improvement greater with in-home (d = 2.1) and telehealth (d = 2.0) vs in-office (d=1.3). The in-home and telehealth scores were significantly improved compared to in-office, and the difference between in-home and telehealth PCL-5 scores was minimal.
• At 6 months posttreatment, the differences between the 3 treatment groups on PCL-5 score were negligible. 
• CAPS-5 scores were significantly improved in all treatment arms, with improvement largest with in-home treatment; however, the differences between the groups were not significant.  
• BDI-II scores improved in all modalities but were larger in the in-home (d = 1.2) and telehealth (d = 1.1) arms than the in-office arm (d = 0.52). 
• Therapist time commitment was greater for the in-home and in-office arms (2 hours/session) than the telehealth arm (1 hour/session). This difference was due to commuting time for the patient or therapist.
• The dropout rate was not statistically significant between the groups.
• Adverse events did not significantly differ per group. The most commonly reported ones included nightmares, sleep difficulty, depression, anxiety, and irritability.

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients undergoing CPT had significant improvement in PTSD symptoms, with posttreatment PCL-5 improvement approximately twice as large in those who received the in-home and telehealth modalities vs in-office treatment. 
• The group differences were not seen on CAPS-5 scores at posttreatment, or PCL-5 or CAPS-5 scores at 6 months posttreatment.  
• In-home CPT was declined the most, which suggests that in-home distractions or the stigma of a mental health clinician being in their home played a role in patients’ decision-making. However, in-home CPT produced the greatest amount of improvement in PTSD symptoms. The authors concluded that in-home therapy should be reserved for those who are homebound or have travel limitations.  
• This study shows evidence that telehealth may be a good modality for CPT, as seen by improvement in PTSD symptoms and good acceptability and retention. 
• Limitations include more patients opting out of in-home CPT, and reimbursement for travel may not be available in the real-world setting.  

In a time of great national and global upheaval, increasing social problems, migration, climate crisis, globalization, and increasingly multicultural societies, our patients and their needs are unique, diverse, and changing. We need a new understanding of mental health to be able to adequately meet the demands of an ever-changing world. Treatment exclusively with psychotropic medications or years of psychoanalysis will not meet these needs.

Psychiatrists and psychotherapists feel (and actually have) a social responsibility, particularly in a multifaceted global society. Psychotherapeutic interventions may contribute to a more peaceful society¹ by reducing individuals’ inner stress, solving (unconscious) conflicts, and conveying a humanistic worldview. As an integrative and transcultural method, positive psychotherapy has been applied for more than 45 years in more than 60 countries and is an active force within a “positive mental health movement.”²

The term “positive psychotherapy” describes 2 different approaches³: positive psychotherapy (1977) by Nossrat Peseschkian,⁴ which is a humanistic psychodynamic approach, and positive psychotherapy (2006) by Martin E.P. Seligman, Tayyab Rashid, and Acacia C. Parks,⁵ which is a more cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)–based approach. This article focuses on the first approach.

Why ‘positive’ psychotherapy?

The term “positive” implies that positive psychotherapy focuses on the patient’s possibilities and capacities. Symptoms and disorders are seen as capacities to react to a conflict. The Latin term “positum” or “positivus” is applied in its original meaning—the factual, the given, the actual. Factual and given are not only the disorder, the symptoms, and the problems but also the capacity to become healthy and/or cope with this situation. This positive meaning confronts the patient (and the therapist) with a lesser-known aspect of the illness, but one that is just as important for the understanding and clinical treatment of the affliction: its function, its meaning, and, consequently, its positive aspects.⁶

Positive psychotherapy is a humanistic psychodynamic psychotherapy approach developed by Nossrat Peseschkian (1933-2010).^4,7 Positive psychotherapy has been developed since the 1970s in the clinical setting with neurotic and psychosomatic patients. It integrates approaches of the 4 main modalities of psychotherapy:

• a humanistic view of human beings
• a systemic approach toward culture, work, and environment
• a psychodynamic understanding of disorders
• a practical, goal-oriented approach with some cognitive-behavioral techniques.

The concept of balance

Based on a humanistic view of human beings and the resources every patient possesses, a key concept of positive psychotherapy is the importance of balance in one’s life. The balance model (Figure) is the core of positive psychotherapy and is applied in clinical and nonclinical settings. This model is based on the concept that there are 4 main areas of life in which a human being lives and functions. These areas influence one’s satisfaction in life, one’s feelings of self-worth, and the way one deals with conflicts and challenges. Although all 4 capacities are latent in every human being, depending on one`s education, environment, and zeitgeist, some will be more developed than others. Our life energies, activities, and reactions belong to these 4 areas of life:

• physical: eating, tenderness, sexuality, sleep, relaxation, sports, appearance, clothing
• achievement: work, job, career, money
• relationships: partner, family, friends, acquaintances and strangers, community life
• meaning and future: existential questions, spirituality, religious practices, future plans, fantasy.

A goal of treatment is to help the patient recognize their own resources and mobilize them with the goal of bringing them into a dynamic equilibrium. This goal places value on a balanced distribution of energy (25% to each area), not of time. According to positive psychotherapy, a person does not become ill because one sphere of life is overemphasized but because of the areas that have been neglected. In the case vignette described in the Box, the problem is not the patient’s work but that his physical health, family and friends, and existential questions are being neglected. That the therapist is not critical from the start of treatment is a constructive experience for the patient and is important and fruitful for building the relationship between the therapist and the patient. Instead of emphasizing the deficits or the disorders, the patient and his family hear that he has neglected other areas of life and not developed them yet.

Box

Continue to: The balance model...

The balance model also embodies the 4 potential sources of self-esteem. Usually, only 1 or 2 areas provide self-esteem, but in the therapeutic process a patient can learn to uncover the neglected areas so that their self-esteem will have additional pillars of support. By emphasizing how therapy can help to develop one’s self-esteem, many patients can be motivated for the therapeutic process. The balance model, with its concept of devoting 25% of one’s energy to each sphere of life, gives the patient a clear vision about their life and how they can be healthy over the long run by avoiding one-sidedness.⁸

The transcultural approach

In positive psychotherapy, the term “transcultural” (or cross-cultural) means not only consideration of cultural factors when the therapist and patient come from diverse cultural backgrounds (intercultural psychotherapy or “migrant psychotherapy”) but specifically the consideration of cultural factors in every therapeutic relationship, as a therapeutic attitude and consequently as a sociopolitical dimension of our thinking and behavior. This consideration of the uniqueness of each person, of the relativity of human behavior, and of “unity in diversity” is an essential reason positive psychotherapy is not a “Western” method in the sense of “psychological colonization.”⁹ Rather, this approach is a culture-sensitive method that can be modified to adapt to particular cultures and life situations.

Transcultural positive psychotherapy begins with answering 2 questions: “How are people different?” and “What do all people have in common?”⁴ During the therapeutic process, the therapist gives examples from other cultures to the patient to help them relativize their own perspective and broaden their repertoire of behavior.

The use of stories, tales, proverbs, and anecdotes

A special technique of positive psychotherapy is the therapeutic use of stories, tales, proverbs, and anecdotes.¹⁰ Often stories from other cultures are used because they offer another perspective when the patient sees none. This has been shown to be highly effective in psychiatric settings, especially in group settings. Psychiatric patients can often easily relate to the images created by stories. In psychiatry and psychotherapy, stories can be a means of changing a patient’s point of view. Such narratives can free up the listener’s feelings and thoughts and often lead to “Aha!” moments. The mirror function of storytelling leads to identification. In the narratives, the reader or listener recognizes themself as well as their needs and situation. They can reflect on the stories without personally becoming the focus of these reflections and remember their own experiences. Stories present solutions that can be models against which one’s own approach can be compared but that also leave room for broader interpretation. Storytelling is particularly useful in bringing about change in patients who are holding fast to old and outworn ideas.

The positive interpretation of disorders

Positive psychotherapy is based on a humanistic view that every human being is good by nature and endowed with unique capacities.¹¹ This positive perspective leads not only to a new quality of relationship between the therapist and patient but also to a new perspective on disorders (Table). Thus, disorders can be “interpreted” in a positive way⁶: What does the patient unconsciously want to express with their symptoms? What is the function of their disorder? The positive process brings with it a change in perspective to all those concerned: the patient, their family, and the therapist/physician. In this way, one moves from the symptom (which is the disorder and often already has been very thoroughly examined) to the conflict (and the function of the disorder). The positive interpretations are only offered to the patient (“What do you say to this explanation?” “Can you apply this to your own situation?”).

Continue to: This process also helps us...

This process also helps us focus on the “true” patient, who often is not our patient. The patient who comes to us functions as a symptom carrier and can be seen as the “weakest link” in the family chain. The “real patient” is often sitting at home. The positive interpretation of illnesses confronts the patient with the possible function and psychodynamic meaning of their illness for themself and their social milieu, encouraging the patient (and their family) to see their abilities and not merely the pathological aspects.¹²

Fields of application of positive psychotherapy

As a method positioned between manualiz­ed CBT and process-oriented analytical psychotherapy, positive psychotherapy pursues a semi-structured approach in diagnostics (first interview), treatment, posttherapeutic self-help, and training. Positive psychotherapy is applied for the treatment of mood (affective), neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders; behavioral syndromes; and, to some extent, personality disorders. Positive psychotherapy has been employed successfully side-by-side with classical individual therapy as well as in the settings of couple, family, and group therapy.¹³

What makes positive psychotherapy attractive for mental health professionals?

• As a method that integrates the 4 main modalities of psychotherapy, it does not engage in the conflicts between different schools but combines effective elements into a single approach.
• As an integrative approach, it adjusts to the patient and not vice versa. It gives the therapist the possibility of focusing more on either the actual problems (supportive approach) or the basic conflict (psychodynamic approach).
• It uses vocabulary and terms that can be understood by patients from all strata of society.
• As a culturally sensitive method, it can be applied to patients from different cultures and does not require cultural adaptation.
• As a psychodynamic method, it does not stop after early life conflicts have become more conscious but helps the patient to apply the gained insights using practical techniques.
• It starts with positive affirmations and encouragement but does not later “forget” the unconscious conflicts that have led to disorders. It is not perceived as superficial.
• As a method originally coming from psychiatry and medical practice, it builds a bridge between a scientific basis and psychotherapeutic insights. It favors the biopsychosocial approach.

Bottom Line

Positive psychotherapy combines humanistic, systemic, psychodynamic, and cognitive-behavioral aspects. It is based on a resource-oriented view of human beings in which disorders are interpreted as capacities to react in a specific and unique way to life events and circumstances. Positive psychotherapy can be applied in psychiatry and psychotherapy. This short-term method is easily understood by patients from diverse cultures and social backgrounds.

Related Resources

• Peseschkian H, Remmers A. Positive psychotherapy: an introduction. In: Messias E, Peseschkian H, Cagande C, eds. Positive Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychology. Springer; 2020:11-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33264-8_2
• Tritt K, Loew T, Meyer M, et al. Positive psychotherapy: effectiveness of an interdisciplinary approach. Eur J Psychiatry. 1999;13(4):231-241.
• World Association for Positive and Transcultural Psychotherapy. http://www.positum.org

In a time of great national and global upheaval, increasing social problems, migration, climate crisis, globalization, and increasingly multicultural societies, our patients and their needs are unique, diverse, and changing. We need a new understanding of mental health to be able to adequately meet the demands of an ever-changing world. Treatment exclusively with psychotropic medications or years of psychoanalysis will not meet these needs.

Psychiatrists and psychotherapists feel (and actually have) a social responsibility, particularly in a multifaceted global society. Psychotherapeutic interventions may contribute to a more peaceful society¹ by reducing individuals’ inner stress, solving (unconscious) conflicts, and conveying a humanistic worldview. As an integrative and transcultural method, positive psychotherapy has been applied for more than 45 years in more than 60 countries and is an active force within a “positive mental health movement.”²

The term “positive psychotherapy” describes 2 different approaches³: positive psychotherapy (1977) by Nossrat Peseschkian,⁴ which is a humanistic psychodynamic approach, and positive psychotherapy (2006) by Martin E.P. Seligman, Tayyab Rashid, and Acacia C. Parks,⁵ which is a more cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)–based approach. This article focuses on the first approach.

Why ‘positive’ psychotherapy?

The term “positive” implies that positive psychotherapy focuses on the patient’s possibilities and capacities. Symptoms and disorders are seen as capacities to react to a conflict. The Latin term “positum” or “positivus” is applied in its original meaning—the factual, the given, the actual. Factual and given are not only the disorder, the symptoms, and the problems but also the capacity to become healthy and/or cope with this situation. This positive meaning confronts the patient (and the therapist) with a lesser-known aspect of the illness, but one that is just as important for the understanding and clinical treatment of the affliction: its function, its meaning, and, consequently, its positive aspects.⁶

Positive psychotherapy is a humanistic psychodynamic psychotherapy approach developed by Nossrat Peseschkian (1933-2010).^4,7 Positive psychotherapy has been developed since the 1970s in the clinical setting with neurotic and psychosomatic patients. It integrates approaches of the 4 main modalities of psychotherapy:

• a humanistic view of human beings
• a systemic approach toward culture, work, and environment
• a psychodynamic understanding of disorders
• a practical, goal-oriented approach with some cognitive-behavioral techniques.

The concept of balance

Based on a humanistic view of human beings and the resources every patient possesses, a key concept of positive psychotherapy is the importance of balance in one’s life. The balance model (Figure) is the core of positive psychotherapy and is applied in clinical and nonclinical settings. This model is based on the concept that there are 4 main areas of life in which a human being lives and functions. These areas influence one’s satisfaction in life, one’s feelings of self-worth, and the way one deals with conflicts and challenges. Although all 4 capacities are latent in every human being, depending on one`s education, environment, and zeitgeist, some will be more developed than others. Our life energies, activities, and reactions belong to these 4 areas of life:

• physical: eating, tenderness, sexuality, sleep, relaxation, sports, appearance, clothing
• achievement: work, job, career, money
• relationships: partner, family, friends, acquaintances and strangers, community life
• meaning and future: existential questions, spirituality, religious practices, future plans, fantasy.

A goal of treatment is to help the patient recognize their own resources and mobilize them with the goal of bringing them into a dynamic equilibrium. This goal places value on a balanced distribution of energy (25% to each area), not of time. According to positive psychotherapy, a person does not become ill because one sphere of life is overemphasized but because of the areas that have been neglected. In the case vignette described in the Box, the problem is not the patient’s work but that his physical health, family and friends, and existential questions are being neglected. That the therapist is not critical from the start of treatment is a constructive experience for the patient and is important and fruitful for building the relationship between the therapist and the patient. Instead of emphasizing the deficits or the disorders, the patient and his family hear that he has neglected other areas of life and not developed them yet.

Box

Continue to: The balance model...

The balance model also embodies the 4 potential sources of self-esteem. Usually, only 1 or 2 areas provide self-esteem, but in the therapeutic process a patient can learn to uncover the neglected areas so that their self-esteem will have additional pillars of support. By emphasizing how therapy can help to develop one’s self-esteem, many patients can be motivated for the therapeutic process. The balance model, with its concept of devoting 25% of one’s energy to each sphere of life, gives the patient a clear vision about their life and how they can be healthy over the long run by avoiding one-sidedness.⁸

The transcultural approach

In positive psychotherapy, the term “transcultural” (or cross-cultural) means not only consideration of cultural factors when the therapist and patient come from diverse cultural backgrounds (intercultural psychotherapy or “migrant psychotherapy”) but specifically the consideration of cultural factors in every therapeutic relationship, as a therapeutic attitude and consequently as a sociopolitical dimension of our thinking and behavior. This consideration of the uniqueness of each person, of the relativity of human behavior, and of “unity in diversity” is an essential reason positive psychotherapy is not a “Western” method in the sense of “psychological colonization.”⁹ Rather, this approach is a culture-sensitive method that can be modified to adapt to particular cultures and life situations.

Transcultural positive psychotherapy begins with answering 2 questions: “How are people different?” and “What do all people have in common?”⁴ During the therapeutic process, the therapist gives examples from other cultures to the patient to help them relativize their own perspective and broaden their repertoire of behavior.

The use of stories, tales, proverbs, and anecdotes

A special technique of positive psychotherapy is the therapeutic use of stories, tales, proverbs, and anecdotes.¹⁰ Often stories from other cultures are used because they offer another perspective when the patient sees none. This has been shown to be highly effective in psychiatric settings, especially in group settings. Psychiatric patients can often easily relate to the images created by stories. In psychiatry and psychotherapy, stories can be a means of changing a patient’s point of view. Such narratives can free up the listener’s feelings and thoughts and often lead to “Aha!” moments. The mirror function of storytelling leads to identification. In the narratives, the reader or listener recognizes themself as well as their needs and situation. They can reflect on the stories without personally becoming the focus of these reflections and remember their own experiences. Stories present solutions that can be models against which one’s own approach can be compared but that also leave room for broader interpretation. Storytelling is particularly useful in bringing about change in patients who are holding fast to old and outworn ideas.

The positive interpretation of disorders

Positive psychotherapy is based on a humanistic view that every human being is good by nature and endowed with unique capacities.¹¹ This positive perspective leads not only to a new quality of relationship between the therapist and patient but also to a new perspective on disorders (Table). Thus, disorders can be “interpreted” in a positive way⁶: What does the patient unconsciously want to express with their symptoms? What is the function of their disorder? The positive process brings with it a change in perspective to all those concerned: the patient, their family, and the therapist/physician. In this way, one moves from the symptom (which is the disorder and often already has been very thoroughly examined) to the conflict (and the function of the disorder). The positive interpretations are only offered to the patient (“What do you say to this explanation?” “Can you apply this to your own situation?”).

Continue to: This process also helps us...

This process also helps us focus on the “true” patient, who often is not our patient. The patient who comes to us functions as a symptom carrier and can be seen as the “weakest link” in the family chain. The “real patient” is often sitting at home. The positive interpretation of illnesses confronts the patient with the possible function and psychodynamic meaning of their illness for themself and their social milieu, encouraging the patient (and their family) to see their abilities and not merely the pathological aspects.¹²

Fields of application of positive psychotherapy

As a method positioned between manualiz­ed CBT and process-oriented analytical psychotherapy, positive psychotherapy pursues a semi-structured approach in diagnostics (first interview), treatment, posttherapeutic self-help, and training. Positive psychotherapy is applied for the treatment of mood (affective), neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders; behavioral syndromes; and, to some extent, personality disorders. Positive psychotherapy has been employed successfully side-by-side with classical individual therapy as well as in the settings of couple, family, and group therapy.¹³

What makes positive psychotherapy attractive for mental health professionals?

• As a method that integrates the 4 main modalities of psychotherapy, it does not engage in the conflicts between different schools but combines effective elements into a single approach.
• As an integrative approach, it adjusts to the patient and not vice versa. It gives the therapist the possibility of focusing more on either the actual problems (supportive approach) or the basic conflict (psychodynamic approach).
• It uses vocabulary and terms that can be understood by patients from all strata of society.
• As a culturally sensitive method, it can be applied to patients from different cultures and does not require cultural adaptation.
• As a psychodynamic method, it does not stop after early life conflicts have become more conscious but helps the patient to apply the gained insights using practical techniques.
• It starts with positive affirmations and encouragement but does not later “forget” the unconscious conflicts that have led to disorders. It is not perceived as superficial.
• As a method originally coming from psychiatry and medical practice, it builds a bridge between a scientific basis and psychotherapeutic insights. It favors the biopsychosocial approach.

Bottom Line

Positive psychotherapy combines humanistic, systemic, psychodynamic, and cognitive-behavioral aspects. It is based on a resource-oriented view of human beings in which disorders are interpreted as capacities to react in a specific and unique way to life events and circumstances. Positive psychotherapy can be applied in psychiatry and psychotherapy. This short-term method is easily understood by patients from diverse cultures and social backgrounds.

Related Resources

• Peseschkian H, Remmers A. Positive psychotherapy: an introduction. In: Messias E, Peseschkian H, Cagande C, eds. Positive Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychology. Springer; 2020:11-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33264-8_2
• Tritt K, Loew T, Meyer M, et al. Positive psychotherapy: effectiveness of an interdisciplinary approach. Eur J Psychiatry. 1999;13(4):231-241.
• World Association for Positive and Transcultural Psychotherapy. http://www.positum.org

In a time of great national and global upheaval, increasing social problems, migration, climate crisis, globalization, and increasingly multicultural societies, our patients and their needs are unique, diverse, and changing. We need a new understanding of mental health to be able to adequately meet the demands of an ever-changing world. Treatment exclusively with psychotropic medications or years of psychoanalysis will not meet these needs.

Psychiatrists and psychotherapists feel (and actually have) a social responsibility, particularly in a multifaceted global society. Psychotherapeutic interventions may contribute to a more peaceful society¹ by reducing individuals’ inner stress, solving (unconscious) conflicts, and conveying a humanistic worldview. As an integrative and transcultural method, positive psychotherapy has been applied for more than 45 years in more than 60 countries and is an active force within a “positive mental health movement.”²

The term “positive psychotherapy” describes 2 different approaches³: positive psychotherapy (1977) by Nossrat Peseschkian,⁴ which is a humanistic psychodynamic approach, and positive psychotherapy (2006) by Martin E.P. Seligman, Tayyab Rashid, and Acacia C. Parks,⁵ which is a more cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)–based approach. This article focuses on the first approach.

Why ‘positive’ psychotherapy?

The term “positive” implies that positive psychotherapy focuses on the patient’s possibilities and capacities. Symptoms and disorders are seen as capacities to react to a conflict. The Latin term “positum” or “positivus” is applied in its original meaning—the factual, the given, the actual. Factual and given are not only the disorder, the symptoms, and the problems but also the capacity to become healthy and/or cope with this situation. This positive meaning confronts the patient (and the therapist) with a lesser-known aspect of the illness, but one that is just as important for the understanding and clinical treatment of the affliction: its function, its meaning, and, consequently, its positive aspects.⁶

Positive psychotherapy is a humanistic psychodynamic psychotherapy approach developed by Nossrat Peseschkian (1933-2010).^4,7 Positive psychotherapy has been developed since the 1970s in the clinical setting with neurotic and psychosomatic patients. It integrates approaches of the 4 main modalities of psychotherapy:

• a humanistic view of human beings
• a systemic approach toward culture, work, and environment
• a psychodynamic understanding of disorders
• a practical, goal-oriented approach with some cognitive-behavioral techniques.

The concept of balance

Based on a humanistic view of human beings and the resources every patient possesses, a key concept of positive psychotherapy is the importance of balance in one’s life. The balance model (Figure) is the core of positive psychotherapy and is applied in clinical and nonclinical settings. This model is based on the concept that there are 4 main areas of life in which a human being lives and functions. These areas influence one’s satisfaction in life, one’s feelings of self-worth, and the way one deals with conflicts and challenges. Although all 4 capacities are latent in every human being, depending on one`s education, environment, and zeitgeist, some will be more developed than others. Our life energies, activities, and reactions belong to these 4 areas of life:

• physical: eating, tenderness, sexuality, sleep, relaxation, sports, appearance, clothing
• achievement: work, job, career, money
• relationships: partner, family, friends, acquaintances and strangers, community life
• meaning and future: existential questions, spirituality, religious practices, future plans, fantasy.

A goal of treatment is to help the patient recognize their own resources and mobilize them with the goal of bringing them into a dynamic equilibrium. This goal places value on a balanced distribution of energy (25% to each area), not of time. According to positive psychotherapy, a person does not become ill because one sphere of life is overemphasized but because of the areas that have been neglected. In the case vignette described in the Box, the problem is not the patient’s work but that his physical health, family and friends, and existential questions are being neglected. That the therapist is not critical from the start of treatment is a constructive experience for the patient and is important and fruitful for building the relationship between the therapist and the patient. Instead of emphasizing the deficits or the disorders, the patient and his family hear that he has neglected other areas of life and not developed them yet.

Box

Continue to: The balance model...

The balance model also embodies the 4 potential sources of self-esteem. Usually, only 1 or 2 areas provide self-esteem, but in the therapeutic process a patient can learn to uncover the neglected areas so that their self-esteem will have additional pillars of support. By emphasizing how therapy can help to develop one’s self-esteem, many patients can be motivated for the therapeutic process. The balance model, with its concept of devoting 25% of one’s energy to each sphere of life, gives the patient a clear vision about their life and how they can be healthy over the long run by avoiding one-sidedness.⁸

The transcultural approach

In positive psychotherapy, the term “transcultural” (or cross-cultural) means not only consideration of cultural factors when the therapist and patient come from diverse cultural backgrounds (intercultural psychotherapy or “migrant psychotherapy”) but specifically the consideration of cultural factors in every therapeutic relationship, as a therapeutic attitude and consequently as a sociopolitical dimension of our thinking and behavior. This consideration of the uniqueness of each person, of the relativity of human behavior, and of “unity in diversity” is an essential reason positive psychotherapy is not a “Western” method in the sense of “psychological colonization.”⁹ Rather, this approach is a culture-sensitive method that can be modified to adapt to particular cultures and life situations.

Transcultural positive psychotherapy begins with answering 2 questions: “How are people different?” and “What do all people have in common?”⁴ During the therapeutic process, the therapist gives examples from other cultures to the patient to help them relativize their own perspective and broaden their repertoire of behavior.

The use of stories, tales, proverbs, and anecdotes

A special technique of positive psychotherapy is the therapeutic use of stories, tales, proverbs, and anecdotes.¹⁰ Often stories from other cultures are used because they offer another perspective when the patient sees none. This has been shown to be highly effective in psychiatric settings, especially in group settings. Psychiatric patients can often easily relate to the images created by stories. In psychiatry and psychotherapy, stories can be a means of changing a patient’s point of view. Such narratives can free up the listener’s feelings and thoughts and often lead to “Aha!” moments. The mirror function of storytelling leads to identification. In the narratives, the reader or listener recognizes themself as well as their needs and situation. They can reflect on the stories without personally becoming the focus of these reflections and remember their own experiences. Stories present solutions that can be models against which one’s own approach can be compared but that also leave room for broader interpretation. Storytelling is particularly useful in bringing about change in patients who are holding fast to old and outworn ideas.

The positive interpretation of disorders

Positive psychotherapy is based on a humanistic view that every human being is good by nature and endowed with unique capacities.¹¹ This positive perspective leads not only to a new quality of relationship between the therapist and patient but also to a new perspective on disorders (Table). Thus, disorders can be “interpreted” in a positive way⁶: What does the patient unconsciously want to express with their symptoms? What is the function of their disorder? The positive process brings with it a change in perspective to all those concerned: the patient, their family, and the therapist/physician. In this way, one moves from the symptom (which is the disorder and often already has been very thoroughly examined) to the conflict (and the function of the disorder). The positive interpretations are only offered to the patient (“What do you say to this explanation?” “Can you apply this to your own situation?”).

Continue to: This process also helps us...

This process also helps us focus on the “true” patient, who often is not our patient. The patient who comes to us functions as a symptom carrier and can be seen as the “weakest link” in the family chain. The “real patient” is often sitting at home. The positive interpretation of illnesses confronts the patient with the possible function and psychodynamic meaning of their illness for themself and their social milieu, encouraging the patient (and their family) to see their abilities and not merely the pathological aspects.¹²

Fields of application of positive psychotherapy

As a method positioned between manualiz­ed CBT and process-oriented analytical psychotherapy, positive psychotherapy pursues a semi-structured approach in diagnostics (first interview), treatment, posttherapeutic self-help, and training. Positive psychotherapy is applied for the treatment of mood (affective), neurotic, stress-related, and somatoform disorders; behavioral syndromes; and, to some extent, personality disorders. Positive psychotherapy has been employed successfully side-by-side with classical individual therapy as well as in the settings of couple, family, and group therapy.¹³

What makes positive psychotherapy attractive for mental health professionals?

• As a method that integrates the 4 main modalities of psychotherapy, it does not engage in the conflicts between different schools but combines effective elements into a single approach.
• As an integrative approach, it adjusts to the patient and not vice versa. It gives the therapist the possibility of focusing more on either the actual problems (supportive approach) or the basic conflict (psychodynamic approach).
• It uses vocabulary and terms that can be understood by patients from all strata of society.
• As a culturally sensitive method, it can be applied to patients from different cultures and does not require cultural adaptation.
• As a psychodynamic method, it does not stop after early life conflicts have become more conscious but helps the patient to apply the gained insights using practical techniques.
• It starts with positive affirmations and encouragement but does not later “forget” the unconscious conflicts that have led to disorders. It is not perceived as superficial.
• As a method originally coming from psychiatry and medical practice, it builds a bridge between a scientific basis and psychotherapeutic insights. It favors the biopsychosocial approach.

Bottom Line

Positive psychotherapy combines humanistic, systemic, psychodynamic, and cognitive-behavioral aspects. It is based on a resource-oriented view of human beings in which disorders are interpreted as capacities to react in a specific and unique way to life events and circumstances. Positive psychotherapy can be applied in psychiatry and psychotherapy. This short-term method is easily understood by patients from diverse cultures and social backgrounds.

Related Resources

• Peseschkian H, Remmers A. Positive psychotherapy: an introduction. In: Messias E, Peseschkian H, Cagande C, eds. Positive Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychology. Springer; 2020:11-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-33264-8_2
• Tritt K, Loew T, Meyer M, et al. Positive psychotherapy: effectiveness of an interdisciplinary approach. Eur J Psychiatry. 1999;13(4):231-241.
• World Association for Positive and Transcultural Psychotherapy. http://www.positum.org

Obesity and overweight, with or without metabolic dysregulation, pose vexing problems for many patients with mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorders. More than one-half of individuals with severe mental illnesses are obese or overweight,¹ resulting from multiple factors that may include psychiatric symptoms (eg, anergia and hyperphagia), poor dietary choices, sedentary lifestyle, underlying inflammatory processes, medical comorbidities, and iatrogenic consequences of certain medications. Unfortunately, numerous psychotropic medications can increase weight and appetite due to a variety of mechanisms, including antihistaminergic effects, direct appetite-stimulating effects, and proclivities to cause insulin resistance. While individual agents can vary, a recent review identified an overall 2-fold increased risk for rapid, significant weight gain during treatment with antipsychotics as a class.² In addition to lifestyle modifications (diet and exercise), many pharmacologic strategies have been proposed to counter iatrogenic weight gain, including appetite suppressants (eg, pro-dopaminergic agents such as phentermine, stimulants, and amantadine), pro-anorectant anticonvulsants (eg, topiramate or zonisamide), opioid receptor antagonists (eg, olanzapine/samidorphan or naltrexone) and oral hypoglycemics such as metformin. However, the magnitude of impact for most of these agents to reverse iatrogenic weight gain tends to be modest, particularly once significant weight gain (ie, ≥7% of initial body weight) has already occurred.

Pharmacologic strategies to modulate or enhance the effects of insulin hold particular importance for combatting psychotropic-associated weight gain. Insulin transports glucose from the intravascular space to end organs for fuel consumption; to varying degrees, second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and some other psychotropic medications can cause insulin resistance. This in turn leads to excessive storage of under­utilized glucose in the liver (glycogenesis), the potential for developing fatty liver (ie, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis), and conversion of excess carbohydrates to fatty acids and triglycerides, with subsequent storage in adipose tissue. Medications that can enhance the activity of insulin (so-called incretin mimetics) can help to overcome insulin resistance caused by SGAs (and potentially by other psychotropic medications) and essentially lead to weight loss through enhanced “fuel efficiency.”

Metformin, typically dosed up to 1,000 mg twice daily with meals, has increasingly become recognized as a first-line strategy to attenuate weight gain and glycemic dysregulation from SGAs via its ability to reduce insulin resistance. Yet meta-analyses have shown that although results are significantly better than placebo, overall long-term weight loss from metformin alone tends to be rather modest (<4 kg) and associated with a reduction in body mass index (BMI) of only approximately 1 point.³ Psychiatrists (and other clinicians who prescribe psychotropic medications that can cause weight gain or metabolic dysregulation) therefore need to become familiar with alternative or adjunctive weight loss options. The use of a relatively new class of incretin mimetics called glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists (Table) has been associated with profound and often dramatic weight loss and improvement of glycemic parameters in patients with obesity and glycemic dysregulation.

What are GLP-1 agonists?

GLP-1 is a hormone secreted by L cells in the intestinal mucosa in response to food. GLP-1 agonists reduce blood sugar by increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon release (thus downregulating further increases in blood sugar), and reducing insulin resistance. GLP-1 agonists also reduce appetite by directly stimulating the satiety center and slowing gastric emptying and GI motility. In addition to GLP-1 agonism, some medications in this family (notably tirzepatide) also agonize a second hormone, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, which can further induce insulin secretion as well as decrease stomach acid secretion, potentially delivering an even more substantial reduction in appetite and weight.

Routes of administration and FDA indications

Due to limited bioavailability, most GLP-1 agonists require subcutaneous (SC) injections (the sole exception is the Rybelsus brand of semaglutide, which comes in a daily pill form). Most are FDA-approved not specifically for weight loss but for patients with type 2 diabetes (defined as a hemoglobin A1C ≥6.5% or a fasting blood glucose level ≥126 mg/dL). Weight loss represents a secondary outcome for GLP-1 agonists FDA-approved for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. The 2 current exceptions to this classification are the Wegovy brand of semaglutide (ie, dosing of 2.4 mg) and the Saxenda brand of liraglutide, both of which carry FDA indications for chronic weight management alone (when paired with dietary and lifestyle modification) in individuals who are obese (BMI >30 kg/m²) regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes, or for persons who are overweight (BMI >27 kg/m²) and have ≥1 weight-related comorbid condition (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia). Although patients at risk for diabetes (ie, prediabetes, defined as a hemoglobin A1C 5.7% to 6.4% or a fasting blood glucose level 100 to 125 mg/dL) were included in FDA registration trials of Saxenda or Wegovy, prediabetes is not an FDA indication for any GLP-1 agonist.

Data in weight loss

Most of the existing empirical data on weight loss with GLP-1 agonists come from studies of individuals who are overweight or obese, with or without type 2 diabetes, rather than from studies using these agents to counteract iatrogenic weight gain. In a retrospective cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes, coadministration with serotonergic antidepressants (eg, citalopram/escitalopram) was associated with attenuation of the weight loss effects of GLP-1 agonists.⁴

Liraglutide currently is the sole GLP-1 agonist studied for treating SGA-associated weight gain. A 16-week randomized trial compared once-daily SC injected liraglutide vs placebo in patients with schizophrenia who incurred weight gain and prediabetes after taking olanzapine or clozapine.⁵ Significantly more patients taking liraglutide than placebo developed normal glucose tolerance (64% vs 16%), and body weight decreased by a mean of 5.3 kg.

Continue to: In studies of semaglutide...

In studies of semaglutide for overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, clinical trials of oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) found a mean weight loss over 26 weeks of -1.0 kg with dosing at 7 mg/d and -2.6 kg with dosing at 14 mg/d.⁶ A 68-week placebo-controlled trial of semaglutide (dosed at 2.4 mg SC weekly) for overweight/obese adults who did not have diabetes yielded a -15.3 kg weight loss (vs -2.6 kg with placebo); one-half of those who received semaglutide lost 15% of their initial body weight (Figure 1A and Figure 1B).⁷ Similar findings with semaglutide 2.4 mg SC weekly (Wegovy) were observed in overweight/obese adolescents, with 73% of participants losing ≥5% of their baseline weight.⁸ A comparative randomized trial in patients with type 2 diabetes also found modestly but significantly greater weight loss with oral semaglutide than with SC liraglutide.⁹

In a 72-week study of tirzepatide specifically for weight loss in nondiabetic patients who were overweight or obese, findings were especially dramatic (Figure 2A and Figure 2B).¹⁰ An overall 15% decrease in body weight was observed with 5 mg/week dosing alongside a 19.5% decrease in body weight with 10 mg/week dosing and a 20.9% weight reduction with 15 mg/week dosing.¹⁰ As noted in Figure 2B, the observed pattern of weight loss occurred along an exponential decay curve. Notably, a comparative study of tirzepatide vs once-weekly semaglutide (1 mg) in patients with type 2 diabetes¹¹ found significantly greater dose-dependent weight loss with tirzepatide than semaglutide (-1.9 kg at 5 mg, -3.6 kg at 10 mg, and -5.5 kg at 15 mg)—although the somewhat low dosing of semaglutide may have limited its optimal possible weight loss benefit.

Tolerability

Adverse effects with GLP-1 agonists are mainly gastrointestinal (eg, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation)^5-11 and generally transient. SC administration is performed in fatty tissue of the abdomen, thigh, or upper arm; site rotation is recommended to minimize injection site pain. All GLP-1 agonists carry manufacturers’ warning and precaution statements identifying the rare potential for acute pancreatitis, acute gall bladder disease, acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemia. Animal studies also have suggested an increased, dose-dependent risk for thyroid C-cell tumors with GLP-1 agonists; this has not been observed in human trials, although postmarketing pharmacovigilance reports have identified cases of medullary thyroid carcinoma in patients who took liraglutide. A manufacturer’s boxed warning indicates that a personal or family history of medullary carcinoma of the thyroid poses a contraindication for taking semaglutide, liraglutide, or tirzepatide.

Initial evidence prompts additional questions

GLP-1 agonists represent an emerging class of novel agents that can modulate glycemic dysregulation and overweight/obesity, often with dramatic results whose magnitude rivals the efficacy of bariatric surgery. Once-weekly formulations of semaglutide (Wegovy) and daily liraglutide (Saxenda) are FDA-approved for weight loss in patients who are overweight or obese while other existing formulations are approved solely for patients with type 2 diabetes, although it is likely that broader indications for weight loss (regardless of glycemic status) are forthcoming. Targeted use of GLP-1 agonists to counteract SGA-associated weight gain is supported by a handful of preliminary reports, with additional studies likely to come. Unanswered questions include:

• When should GLP-1 agonists be considered within a treatment algorithm for iatrogenic weight gain relative to other antidote strategies such as metformin or appetite-suppressing anticonvulsants?
• How effective might GLP-1 agonists be for iatrogenic weight gain from non-SGA psychotropic medications, such as serotonergic antidepressants?
• When and how can GLP-1 agonists be safely coprescribed with other nonincretin mimetic weight loss medications?
• When should psychiatrists prescribe GLP-1 agonists, or do so collaboratively with primary care physicians or endocrinologists, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome?

Followers of the rapidly emerging literature in this area will likely find themselves best positioned to address these and other questions about optimal management of psychotropic-induced weight gain for the patients they treat.

Bottom Line

The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, a relatively new class of incretin mimetics, has been associated with profound and often dramatic weight loss and improvement of glycemic parameters in patients with obesity and glycemic dysregulation. Preliminary reports support the potential targeted use of GLP-1 agonists to counteract weight gain associated with second-generation antipsychotics.

Related Resources

• Singh F, Allen A, Ianni A. Managing metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(12):20-24,26. doi:10.12788/cp.0064
• Ard J, Fitch A, Fruh S, et al. Weight loss and maintenance related to the mechanism of action of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists. Adv Ther. 2021;38(6):2821- 2839. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01710-0

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Gocovri
Citalopram • Celexa
Clozapine • Clozaril
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Liraglutide • Victoza, Saxenda
Metformin • Glucophage
Naltrexone • ReVia
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Olanzapine/samidorphan • Lybalvi
Phentermine • Ionamin
Semaglutide • Rybelsus, Ozempic, Wegovy
Tirzepatide • Mounjaro
Topiramate • Topamax
Zonisamide • Zonegran

Obesity and overweight, with or without metabolic dysregulation, pose vexing problems for many patients with mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorders. More than one-half of individuals with severe mental illnesses are obese or overweight,¹ resulting from multiple factors that may include psychiatric symptoms (eg, anergia and hyperphagia), poor dietary choices, sedentary lifestyle, underlying inflammatory processes, medical comorbidities, and iatrogenic consequences of certain medications. Unfortunately, numerous psychotropic medications can increase weight and appetite due to a variety of mechanisms, including antihistaminergic effects, direct appetite-stimulating effects, and proclivities to cause insulin resistance. While individual agents can vary, a recent review identified an overall 2-fold increased risk for rapid, significant weight gain during treatment with antipsychotics as a class.² In addition to lifestyle modifications (diet and exercise), many pharmacologic strategies have been proposed to counter iatrogenic weight gain, including appetite suppressants (eg, pro-dopaminergic agents such as phentermine, stimulants, and amantadine), pro-anorectant anticonvulsants (eg, topiramate or zonisamide), opioid receptor antagonists (eg, olanzapine/samidorphan or naltrexone) and oral hypoglycemics such as metformin. However, the magnitude of impact for most of these agents to reverse iatrogenic weight gain tends to be modest, particularly once significant weight gain (ie, ≥7% of initial body weight) has already occurred.

Pharmacologic strategies to modulate or enhance the effects of insulin hold particular importance for combatting psychotropic-associated weight gain. Insulin transports glucose from the intravascular space to end organs for fuel consumption; to varying degrees, second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and some other psychotropic medications can cause insulin resistance. This in turn leads to excessive storage of under­utilized glucose in the liver (glycogenesis), the potential for developing fatty liver (ie, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis), and conversion of excess carbohydrates to fatty acids and triglycerides, with subsequent storage in adipose tissue. Medications that can enhance the activity of insulin (so-called incretin mimetics) can help to overcome insulin resistance caused by SGAs (and potentially by other psychotropic medications) and essentially lead to weight loss through enhanced “fuel efficiency.”

Metformin, typically dosed up to 1,000 mg twice daily with meals, has increasingly become recognized as a first-line strategy to attenuate weight gain and glycemic dysregulation from SGAs via its ability to reduce insulin resistance. Yet meta-analyses have shown that although results are significantly better than placebo, overall long-term weight loss from metformin alone tends to be rather modest (<4 kg) and associated with a reduction in body mass index (BMI) of only approximately 1 point.³ Psychiatrists (and other clinicians who prescribe psychotropic medications that can cause weight gain or metabolic dysregulation) therefore need to become familiar with alternative or adjunctive weight loss options. The use of a relatively new class of incretin mimetics called glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists (Table) has been associated with profound and often dramatic weight loss and improvement of glycemic parameters in patients with obesity and glycemic dysregulation.

What are GLP-1 agonists?

GLP-1 is a hormone secreted by L cells in the intestinal mucosa in response to food. GLP-1 agonists reduce blood sugar by increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon release (thus downregulating further increases in blood sugar), and reducing insulin resistance. GLP-1 agonists also reduce appetite by directly stimulating the satiety center and slowing gastric emptying and GI motility. In addition to GLP-1 agonism, some medications in this family (notably tirzepatide) also agonize a second hormone, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, which can further induce insulin secretion as well as decrease stomach acid secretion, potentially delivering an even more substantial reduction in appetite and weight.

Routes of administration and FDA indications

Due to limited bioavailability, most GLP-1 agonists require subcutaneous (SC) injections (the sole exception is the Rybelsus brand of semaglutide, which comes in a daily pill form). Most are FDA-approved not specifically for weight loss but for patients with type 2 diabetes (defined as a hemoglobin A1C ≥6.5% or a fasting blood glucose level ≥126 mg/dL). Weight loss represents a secondary outcome for GLP-1 agonists FDA-approved for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. The 2 current exceptions to this classification are the Wegovy brand of semaglutide (ie, dosing of 2.4 mg) and the Saxenda brand of liraglutide, both of which carry FDA indications for chronic weight management alone (when paired with dietary and lifestyle modification) in individuals who are obese (BMI >30 kg/m²) regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes, or for persons who are overweight (BMI >27 kg/m²) and have ≥1 weight-related comorbid condition (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia). Although patients at risk for diabetes (ie, prediabetes, defined as a hemoglobin A1C 5.7% to 6.4% or a fasting blood glucose level 100 to 125 mg/dL) were included in FDA registration trials of Saxenda or Wegovy, prediabetes is not an FDA indication for any GLP-1 agonist.

Data in weight loss

Most of the existing empirical data on weight loss with GLP-1 agonists come from studies of individuals who are overweight or obese, with or without type 2 diabetes, rather than from studies using these agents to counteract iatrogenic weight gain. In a retrospective cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes, coadministration with serotonergic antidepressants (eg, citalopram/escitalopram) was associated with attenuation of the weight loss effects of GLP-1 agonists.⁴

Liraglutide currently is the sole GLP-1 agonist studied for treating SGA-associated weight gain. A 16-week randomized trial compared once-daily SC injected liraglutide vs placebo in patients with schizophrenia who incurred weight gain and prediabetes after taking olanzapine or clozapine.⁵ Significantly more patients taking liraglutide than placebo developed normal glucose tolerance (64% vs 16%), and body weight decreased by a mean of 5.3 kg.

Continue to: In studies of semaglutide...

In studies of semaglutide for overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, clinical trials of oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) found a mean weight loss over 26 weeks of -1.0 kg with dosing at 7 mg/d and -2.6 kg with dosing at 14 mg/d.⁶ A 68-week placebo-controlled trial of semaglutide (dosed at 2.4 mg SC weekly) for overweight/obese adults who did not have diabetes yielded a -15.3 kg weight loss (vs -2.6 kg with placebo); one-half of those who received semaglutide lost 15% of their initial body weight (Figure 1A and Figure 1B).⁷ Similar findings with semaglutide 2.4 mg SC weekly (Wegovy) were observed in overweight/obese adolescents, with 73% of participants losing ≥5% of their baseline weight.⁸ A comparative randomized trial in patients with type 2 diabetes also found modestly but significantly greater weight loss with oral semaglutide than with SC liraglutide.⁹

In a 72-week study of tirzepatide specifically for weight loss in nondiabetic patients who were overweight or obese, findings were especially dramatic (Figure 2A and Figure 2B).¹⁰ An overall 15% decrease in body weight was observed with 5 mg/week dosing alongside a 19.5% decrease in body weight with 10 mg/week dosing and a 20.9% weight reduction with 15 mg/week dosing.¹⁰ As noted in Figure 2B, the observed pattern of weight loss occurred along an exponential decay curve. Notably, a comparative study of tirzepatide vs once-weekly semaglutide (1 mg) in patients with type 2 diabetes¹¹ found significantly greater dose-dependent weight loss with tirzepatide than semaglutide (-1.9 kg at 5 mg, -3.6 kg at 10 mg, and -5.5 kg at 15 mg)—although the somewhat low dosing of semaglutide may have limited its optimal possible weight loss benefit.

Tolerability

Adverse effects with GLP-1 agonists are mainly gastrointestinal (eg, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation)^5-11 and generally transient. SC administration is performed in fatty tissue of the abdomen, thigh, or upper arm; site rotation is recommended to minimize injection site pain. All GLP-1 agonists carry manufacturers’ warning and precaution statements identifying the rare potential for acute pancreatitis, acute gall bladder disease, acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemia. Animal studies also have suggested an increased, dose-dependent risk for thyroid C-cell tumors with GLP-1 agonists; this has not been observed in human trials, although postmarketing pharmacovigilance reports have identified cases of medullary thyroid carcinoma in patients who took liraglutide. A manufacturer’s boxed warning indicates that a personal or family history of medullary carcinoma of the thyroid poses a contraindication for taking semaglutide, liraglutide, or tirzepatide.

Initial evidence prompts additional questions

GLP-1 agonists represent an emerging class of novel agents that can modulate glycemic dysregulation and overweight/obesity, often with dramatic results whose magnitude rivals the efficacy of bariatric surgery. Once-weekly formulations of semaglutide (Wegovy) and daily liraglutide (Saxenda) are FDA-approved for weight loss in patients who are overweight or obese while other existing formulations are approved solely for patients with type 2 diabetes, although it is likely that broader indications for weight loss (regardless of glycemic status) are forthcoming. Targeted use of GLP-1 agonists to counteract SGA-associated weight gain is supported by a handful of preliminary reports, with additional studies likely to come. Unanswered questions include:

• When should GLP-1 agonists be considered within a treatment algorithm for iatrogenic weight gain relative to other antidote strategies such as metformin or appetite-suppressing anticonvulsants?
• How effective might GLP-1 agonists be for iatrogenic weight gain from non-SGA psychotropic medications, such as serotonergic antidepressants?
• When and how can GLP-1 agonists be safely coprescribed with other nonincretin mimetic weight loss medications?
• When should psychiatrists prescribe GLP-1 agonists, or do so collaboratively with primary care physicians or endocrinologists, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome?

Followers of the rapidly emerging literature in this area will likely find themselves best positioned to address these and other questions about optimal management of psychotropic-induced weight gain for the patients they treat.

Bottom Line

The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, a relatively new class of incretin mimetics, has been associated with profound and often dramatic weight loss and improvement of glycemic parameters in patients with obesity and glycemic dysregulation. Preliminary reports support the potential targeted use of GLP-1 agonists to counteract weight gain associated with second-generation antipsychotics.

Related Resources

• Singh F, Allen A, Ianni A. Managing metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(12):20-24,26. doi:10.12788/cp.0064
• Ard J, Fitch A, Fruh S, et al. Weight loss and maintenance related to the mechanism of action of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists. Adv Ther. 2021;38(6):2821- 2839. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01710-0

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Gocovri
Citalopram • Celexa
Clozapine • Clozaril
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Liraglutide • Victoza, Saxenda
Metformin • Glucophage
Naltrexone • ReVia
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Olanzapine/samidorphan • Lybalvi
Phentermine • Ionamin
Semaglutide • Rybelsus, Ozempic, Wegovy
Tirzepatide • Mounjaro
Topiramate • Topamax
Zonisamide • Zonegran

Obesity and overweight, with or without metabolic dysregulation, pose vexing problems for many patients with mood, anxiety, or psychotic disorders. More than one-half of individuals with severe mental illnesses are obese or overweight,¹ resulting from multiple factors that may include psychiatric symptoms (eg, anergia and hyperphagia), poor dietary choices, sedentary lifestyle, underlying inflammatory processes, medical comorbidities, and iatrogenic consequences of certain medications. Unfortunately, numerous psychotropic medications can increase weight and appetite due to a variety of mechanisms, including antihistaminergic effects, direct appetite-stimulating effects, and proclivities to cause insulin resistance. While individual agents can vary, a recent review identified an overall 2-fold increased risk for rapid, significant weight gain during treatment with antipsychotics as a class.² In addition to lifestyle modifications (diet and exercise), many pharmacologic strategies have been proposed to counter iatrogenic weight gain, including appetite suppressants (eg, pro-dopaminergic agents such as phentermine, stimulants, and amantadine), pro-anorectant anticonvulsants (eg, topiramate or zonisamide), opioid receptor antagonists (eg, olanzapine/samidorphan or naltrexone) and oral hypoglycemics such as metformin. However, the magnitude of impact for most of these agents to reverse iatrogenic weight gain tends to be modest, particularly once significant weight gain (ie, ≥7% of initial body weight) has already occurred.

Pharmacologic strategies to modulate or enhance the effects of insulin hold particular importance for combatting psychotropic-associated weight gain. Insulin transports glucose from the intravascular space to end organs for fuel consumption; to varying degrees, second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) and some other psychotropic medications can cause insulin resistance. This in turn leads to excessive storage of under­utilized glucose in the liver (glycogenesis), the potential for developing fatty liver (ie, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis), and conversion of excess carbohydrates to fatty acids and triglycerides, with subsequent storage in adipose tissue. Medications that can enhance the activity of insulin (so-called incretin mimetics) can help to overcome insulin resistance caused by SGAs (and potentially by other psychotropic medications) and essentially lead to weight loss through enhanced “fuel efficiency.”

Metformin, typically dosed up to 1,000 mg twice daily with meals, has increasingly become recognized as a first-line strategy to attenuate weight gain and glycemic dysregulation from SGAs via its ability to reduce insulin resistance. Yet meta-analyses have shown that although results are significantly better than placebo, overall long-term weight loss from metformin alone tends to be rather modest (<4 kg) and associated with a reduction in body mass index (BMI) of only approximately 1 point.³ Psychiatrists (and other clinicians who prescribe psychotropic medications that can cause weight gain or metabolic dysregulation) therefore need to become familiar with alternative or adjunctive weight loss options. The use of a relatively new class of incretin mimetics called glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists (Table) has been associated with profound and often dramatic weight loss and improvement of glycemic parameters in patients with obesity and glycemic dysregulation.

What are GLP-1 agonists?

GLP-1 is a hormone secreted by L cells in the intestinal mucosa in response to food. GLP-1 agonists reduce blood sugar by increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon release (thus downregulating further increases in blood sugar), and reducing insulin resistance. GLP-1 agonists also reduce appetite by directly stimulating the satiety center and slowing gastric emptying and GI motility. In addition to GLP-1 agonism, some medications in this family (notably tirzepatide) also agonize a second hormone, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, which can further induce insulin secretion as well as decrease stomach acid secretion, potentially delivering an even more substantial reduction in appetite and weight.

Routes of administration and FDA indications

Due to limited bioavailability, most GLP-1 agonists require subcutaneous (SC) injections (the sole exception is the Rybelsus brand of semaglutide, which comes in a daily pill form). Most are FDA-approved not specifically for weight loss but for patients with type 2 diabetes (defined as a hemoglobin A1C ≥6.5% or a fasting blood glucose level ≥126 mg/dL). Weight loss represents a secondary outcome for GLP-1 agonists FDA-approved for glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. The 2 current exceptions to this classification are the Wegovy brand of semaglutide (ie, dosing of 2.4 mg) and the Saxenda brand of liraglutide, both of which carry FDA indications for chronic weight management alone (when paired with dietary and lifestyle modification) in individuals who are obese (BMI >30 kg/m²) regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes, or for persons who are overweight (BMI >27 kg/m²) and have ≥1 weight-related comorbid condition (eg, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, or dyslipidemia). Although patients at risk for diabetes (ie, prediabetes, defined as a hemoglobin A1C 5.7% to 6.4% or a fasting blood glucose level 100 to 125 mg/dL) were included in FDA registration trials of Saxenda or Wegovy, prediabetes is not an FDA indication for any GLP-1 agonist.

Data in weight loss

Most of the existing empirical data on weight loss with GLP-1 agonists come from studies of individuals who are overweight or obese, with or without type 2 diabetes, rather than from studies using these agents to counteract iatrogenic weight gain. In a retrospective cohort study of patients with type 2 diabetes, coadministration with serotonergic antidepressants (eg, citalopram/escitalopram) was associated with attenuation of the weight loss effects of GLP-1 agonists.⁴

Liraglutide currently is the sole GLP-1 agonist studied for treating SGA-associated weight gain. A 16-week randomized trial compared once-daily SC injected liraglutide vs placebo in patients with schizophrenia who incurred weight gain and prediabetes after taking olanzapine or clozapine.⁵ Significantly more patients taking liraglutide than placebo developed normal glucose tolerance (64% vs 16%), and body weight decreased by a mean of 5.3 kg.

Continue to: In studies of semaglutide...

In studies of semaglutide for overweight/obese patients with type 2 diabetes or prediabetes, clinical trials of oral semaglutide (Rybelsus) found a mean weight loss over 26 weeks of -1.0 kg with dosing at 7 mg/d and -2.6 kg with dosing at 14 mg/d.⁶ A 68-week placebo-controlled trial of semaglutide (dosed at 2.4 mg SC weekly) for overweight/obese adults who did not have diabetes yielded a -15.3 kg weight loss (vs -2.6 kg with placebo); one-half of those who received semaglutide lost 15% of their initial body weight (Figure 1A and Figure 1B).⁷ Similar findings with semaglutide 2.4 mg SC weekly (Wegovy) were observed in overweight/obese adolescents, with 73% of participants losing ≥5% of their baseline weight.⁸ A comparative randomized trial in patients with type 2 diabetes also found modestly but significantly greater weight loss with oral semaglutide than with SC liraglutide.⁹

In a 72-week study of tirzepatide specifically for weight loss in nondiabetic patients who were overweight or obese, findings were especially dramatic (Figure 2A and Figure 2B).¹⁰ An overall 15% decrease in body weight was observed with 5 mg/week dosing alongside a 19.5% decrease in body weight with 10 mg/week dosing and a 20.9% weight reduction with 15 mg/week dosing.¹⁰ As noted in Figure 2B, the observed pattern of weight loss occurred along an exponential decay curve. Notably, a comparative study of tirzepatide vs once-weekly semaglutide (1 mg) in patients with type 2 diabetes¹¹ found significantly greater dose-dependent weight loss with tirzepatide than semaglutide (-1.9 kg at 5 mg, -3.6 kg at 10 mg, and -5.5 kg at 15 mg)—although the somewhat low dosing of semaglutide may have limited its optimal possible weight loss benefit.

Tolerability

Adverse effects with GLP-1 agonists are mainly gastrointestinal (eg, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, or constipation)^5-11 and generally transient. SC administration is performed in fatty tissue of the abdomen, thigh, or upper arm; site rotation is recommended to minimize injection site pain. All GLP-1 agonists carry manufacturers’ warning and precaution statements identifying the rare potential for acute pancreatitis, acute gall bladder disease, acute kidney injury, and hypoglycemia. Animal studies also have suggested an increased, dose-dependent risk for thyroid C-cell tumors with GLP-1 agonists; this has not been observed in human trials, although postmarketing pharmacovigilance reports have identified cases of medullary thyroid carcinoma in patients who took liraglutide. A manufacturer’s boxed warning indicates that a personal or family history of medullary carcinoma of the thyroid poses a contraindication for taking semaglutide, liraglutide, or tirzepatide.

Initial evidence prompts additional questions

GLP-1 agonists represent an emerging class of novel agents that can modulate glycemic dysregulation and overweight/obesity, often with dramatic results whose magnitude rivals the efficacy of bariatric surgery. Once-weekly formulations of semaglutide (Wegovy) and daily liraglutide (Saxenda) are FDA-approved for weight loss in patients who are overweight or obese while other existing formulations are approved solely for patients with type 2 diabetes, although it is likely that broader indications for weight loss (regardless of glycemic status) are forthcoming. Targeted use of GLP-1 agonists to counteract SGA-associated weight gain is supported by a handful of preliminary reports, with additional studies likely to come. Unanswered questions include:

• When should GLP-1 agonists be considered within a treatment algorithm for iatrogenic weight gain relative to other antidote strategies such as metformin or appetite-suppressing anticonvulsants?
• How effective might GLP-1 agonists be for iatrogenic weight gain from non-SGA psychotropic medications, such as serotonergic antidepressants?
• When and how can GLP-1 agonists be safely coprescribed with other nonincretin mimetic weight loss medications?
• When should psychiatrists prescribe GLP-1 agonists, or do so collaboratively with primary care physicians or endocrinologists, particularly in patients with metabolic syndrome?

Followers of the rapidly emerging literature in this area will likely find themselves best positioned to address these and other questions about optimal management of psychotropic-induced weight gain for the patients they treat.

Bottom Line

The use of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists, a relatively new class of incretin mimetics, has been associated with profound and often dramatic weight loss and improvement of glycemic parameters in patients with obesity and glycemic dysregulation. Preliminary reports support the potential targeted use of GLP-1 agonists to counteract weight gain associated with second-generation antipsychotics.

Related Resources

• Singh F, Allen A, Ianni A. Managing metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(12):20-24,26. doi:10.12788/cp.0064
• Ard J, Fitch A, Fruh S, et al. Weight loss and maintenance related to the mechanism of action of glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists. Adv Ther. 2021;38(6):2821- 2839. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01710-0

Drug Brand Names

Amantadine • Gocovri
Citalopram • Celexa
Clozapine • Clozaril
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Liraglutide • Victoza, Saxenda
Metformin • Glucophage
Naltrexone • ReVia
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Olanzapine/samidorphan • Lybalvi
Phentermine • Ionamin
Semaglutide • Rybelsus, Ozempic, Wegovy
Tirzepatide • Mounjaro
Topiramate • Topamax
Zonisamide • Zonegran

Catatonia is often difficult to identify and treat. The excited catatonia subtype can be particularly challenging to diagnose because it can present with symptoms similar to those seen in mania or psychosis. In this article, we present 3 cases of excited catatonia that illustrate how to identify it, how to treat the catatonia as well as the underlying pathology, and factors to consider during this process to mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes. We also outline a treatment algorithm we used for the 3 cases. Although we describe using this approach for patients with excited catatonia, it is generalizable to other types of catatonia.

Many causes, varying presentations

Catatonia is a psychomotor syndrome characterized by mutism, negativism, stereotypy, waxy flexibility, and other symptoms.¹ It is defined by the presence of ≥3 of the 12 symptoms listed in the Table.² Causes of catatonia include metabolic abnormalities, endocrine disorders, drug intoxication, neurodevelopmental disorders, medication adverse effects, psychosis, and mood disorders.^1,3

A subtype of this syndrome, excited catatonia, can present with restlessness, agitation, emotional lability, poor sleep, and altered mental status in addition to the more typical symptoms.^1,4 Because excited catatonia can resemble mania or psychosis, it is particularly challenging to identify the underlying disorder causing it and appropriate treatment. Fink et al⁴ discussed how clinicians have interpreted the different presentations of excited catatonia to gain insight into the underlying diagnosis. If the patient’s thought process appears disorganized, psychosis may be suspected.⁴ If the patient is delusional and grandiose, they may be manic, and when altered mental status dominates the presentation, delirium may be the culprit.⁴

Regardless of the underlying cause, the first step is to treat the catatonia. Benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are the most well validated treatments for catatonia and have been used to treat excited catatonia.¹ Excited catatonia is often misdiagnosed and subsequently mistreated. In the following 3 cases, excited catatonia was successfully identified and treated using the same approach (Figure).

Case 1

Mr. A, age 27, has a history of bipolar I disorder. He was brought to the hospital by ambulance after being found to be yelling and acting belligerently, and he was admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit for manic decompensation due to medication nonadherence. He was started on divalproex sodium 500 mg twice a day for mood stabilization, risperidone 1 mg twice a day for adjunct mood stabilization and psychosis, and lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day for agitation. Mr. A exhibited odd behavior; he would take off his clothes in the hallway, run around the unit, and randomly yell at staff or to himself. At other times, he would stay silent, repeat the same statements, or oddly posture in the hallway for minutes at a time. These behaviors were seen primarily in the hour or 2 preceding lorazepam administration and improved after he received lorazepam.

Mr. A’s treating team completed the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), which yielded a positive catatonia screen of 7/14. As a result, divalproex sodium and risperidone were held, and lorazepam was increased to 2 mg twice a day.

After several days, Mr. A was no longer acting oddly and was able to speak more spontaneously; however, he began to exhibit overt signs of mania. He would speak rapidly and make grandiose claims about managing millions of dollars as the CEO of a famous company. Divalproex sodium was restarted at 500 mg twice a day and increased to 500 mg 3 times a day for mood stabilization. Mr. A continued to receive lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day for catatonia, and risperidone was restarted at 1 mg twice a day to more effectively target his manic symptoms. Risperidone was increased to 2 mg twice a day. After this change, Mr. A’s grandiosity dissipated, his speech normalized, and his thought process became organized. He was discharged on lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day, divalproex sodium 500 mg 3 times a day, and risperidone 2 mg twice a day. Mr. A’s length of stay (LOS) for this admission was 11 days.

Continue to: Case 2

Case 2

Mr. B, age 49, presented with irritability and odd posturing. He has a history of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type for which he was receiving a maintenance regimen of lithium 600 mg/d at bedtime and risperidone 2 mg/d at bedtime. He had multiple previous psychiatric admissions for catatonia. On this admission, Mr. B was irritable and difficult to redirect. He yelled at staff members and had a stiff gait. The BFCRS yielded a positive screening score of 3/14 and a severity score of 8/23. As a result, the treatment team conducted a lorazepam challenge.

After Mr. B received lorazepam 1 mg IM, his thought organization and irritability improved, which allowed him to have a coherent conversation with the interviewer. His gait stiffness also improved. His risperidone and lithium were held, and oral lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day was started for catatonia. Lorazepam was gradually increased to 4 mg 3 times a day. Mr. B became euthymic and redirectable, and had an improved gait. However, he was also tangential and hyperverbal; these symptoms were indicative of the underlying mania that precipitated his catatonia.

Divalproex sodium extended release (ER) was started and increased to 1,500 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization. Lithium was restarted and increased to 300 mg twice a day for adjunct mood stabilization. Risperidone was not restarted. Toward the end of his admission, Mr. B was noted to be overly sedated, so the lorazepam dosage was decreased. He was discharged on lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day, divalproex sodium ER 1,500 mg/d at bedtime, and lithium 300 mg twice a day. At discharge, Mr. B was calm and euthymic, with a linear thought process. His LOS was 25 days.

Case 3

Mr. C, age 62, presented to the emergency department (ED) because he had exhibited erratic behavior and had not slept for the past week. He has a history of bipolar I disorder, hypothyroidism, diabetes, and hypertension. For many years, he had been stable on divalproex sodium ER 2,500 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization and clozapine 100 mg/d at bedtime for adjunct mood stabilization and psychosis. In the ED, Mr. C was irritable, distractible, and tangential. On admission, he was speaking slowly with increased speech latency in response to questions, exhibiting stereotypy, repeating statements over and over, and walking very slowly.

The BFCRS yielded a positive screening score of 5/14 and a severity score of 10/23. Lorazepam 1 mg IM was administered. After 15 minutes, Mr. C’s speech, gait, and distractibility improved. As a result, clozapine and divalproex sodium were held, and he was started on oral lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day. After several days, Mr. C was speaking fluently and no longer exhibiting stereotypy or having outbursts where he would make repetitive statements. However, he was tangential and irritable at times, which were signs of his underlying mania. Divalproex sodium ER was restarted at 250 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization and gradually increased to 2,500 mg/d at bedtime. Clozapine was also restarted at 25 mg/d at bedtime and gradually increased to 200 mg/d at bedtime. The lorazepam was gradually tapered and discontinued over the course of 3 weeks due to oversedation.

Continue to: At discharge...

At discharge, Mr. C was euthymic, calm, linear, and goal-directed. He was discharged on divalproex sodium ER 2,500 mg/d at bedtime and clozapine 200 mg/d at bedtime. His LOS for this admission was 22 days.

A stepwise approach can improve outcomes

The Figure outlines the method we used to manage excited catatonia in these 3 cases. Each of these patients exhibited signs of excited catatonia, but because those symptoms were nearly identical to those of mania, it was initially difficult to identify catatonia. Excited catatonia was suspected after more typical catatonic symptoms—such as a stiff gait, slowed speech, and stereotypy—were observed. The BFCRS was completed to get an objective measure of the likelihood that the patient was catatonic. In all 3 cases, the BFCRS resulted in a positive screen for catatonia. Following this, the patients described in Case 2 and Case 3 received a lorazepam challenge, which confirmed their catatonia. No lorazepam challenge was performed in Case 1 because the patient was already receiving lorazepam when the BFCRS was completed. Although most catatonic patients will respond to a lorazepam challenge, not all will. Therefore, clinicians should maintain some degree of suspicion for catatonia if a patient has a positive screen on the BFCRS but a negative lorazepam challenge.

In all 3 cases, after catatonia was confirmed, the patient’s psychotropic medications were discontinued. In all 3 cases, the antipsychotic was held to prevent progression to neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) or malignant catatonia. Rasmussen et al³ found that 3.6% of the catatonic patients in their sample who were treated with antipsychotics developed NMS. A review of prospective studies looking at patients treated with antipsychotics found the incidence of NMS was .07% to 1.8%.⁵ Because NMS is often clinically indistinguishable from malignant catatonia,^4,6 this incidence of NMS may have represented an increased incidence in malignant catatonia.

In all 3 cases, the mood stabilizer was held to prevent it from complicating the clinical picture. Discontinuing the mood stabilizer and focusing on treating the catatonia before targeting the underlying mania increased the likelihood of differentiating the patient’s catatonic symptoms from manic symptoms. This resulted in more precise medication selection and titration by allowing us to identify the specific symptoms that were being targeted by each medication.

Oral lorazepam was prescribed to target catatonia in all 3 cases, and the dosage was gradually increased until symptoms began to resolve. As the catatonia resolved, the manic symptoms became more easily identifiable, and at this point a mood stabilizer was started and titrated to a therapeutic dose to target the mania. In Case 1 and Case 3, the antipsychotic was restarted to treat the mania more effectively. It was not restarted in Case 2 because the patient’s mania was effectively being managed by 2 mood stabilizers. The risks and benefits of starting an antipsychotic in a catatonic or recently catatonic patient should be carefully considered. In the 2 cases where the antipsychotic was restarted, the patients were closely monitored, and there were no signs of NMS or malignant catatonia.

Continue to: As discharge approached...

As discharge approached, the dosages of oral lorazepam were reevaluated. Catatonic patients can typically tolerate high doses of benzodiazepines without becoming overly sedated, but each patient has a different threshold at which the dosage causes oversedation. In all 3 patients, lorazepam was initially titrated to a dose that treated their catatonic symptoms without causing intolerable sedation. In Case 2 and Case 3, as the catatonia began to resolve, the patients became increasingly sedated on their existing lorazepam dosage, so it was decreased. Because the patient in Case 1 did not become overly sedated, his lorazepam dosage did not need to be reduced.

For 2 of these patients, our approach resulted in a shorter LOS compared to their previous hospitalizations. The LOS in Case 2 was 25 days; 5 years earlier, he had a 49-day LOS for mania and catatonia. During the past admission, the identification and treatment of the catatonia was delayed, which resulted in the patient requiring multiple transfers to the medical unit for unstable vital signs. The LOS in Case 3 was 22 days; 6 months prior to this admission, the patient had 2 psychiatric admissions that totaled 37 days. Although the patient’s presentation in the 2 previous admissions was similar to his presentation as described in Case 3, catatonia had not been identified or treated in either admission. Since his catatonia and mania were treated in Case 3, he has not required a readmission. The patient in Case 1 was previously hospitalized, but information about the LOS of these admissions was not available. These results suggest that early identification and treatment of catatonia via the approach we used can improve patient outcomes.

Bottom Line

Excited catatonia can be challenging to diagnose and treat because it can present with symptoms similar to those seen in mania or psychosis. We describe 3 cases in which we used a stepwise approach to optimize treatment and improve outcomes for patients with excited catatonia. This approach may work equally well for other catatonia subtypes.

Related Resources

• Dubovsky SL, Dubovsky AN. Catatonia: how to identify and treat it. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):16-26.
• Crouse EL, Joel B. Moran JB. Catatonia: recognition, management, and prevention of complications. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(12):45-49.

Drug Brand Names

Clozapine • Clozaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Risperidone • Risperdal
Divalproex sodium • Depakote

Catatonia is often difficult to identify and treat. The excited catatonia subtype can be particularly challenging to diagnose because it can present with symptoms similar to those seen in mania or psychosis. In this article, we present 3 cases of excited catatonia that illustrate how to identify it, how to treat the catatonia as well as the underlying pathology, and factors to consider during this process to mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes. We also outline a treatment algorithm we used for the 3 cases. Although we describe using this approach for patients with excited catatonia, it is generalizable to other types of catatonia.

Many causes, varying presentations

Catatonia is a psychomotor syndrome characterized by mutism, negativism, stereotypy, waxy flexibility, and other symptoms.¹ It is defined by the presence of ≥3 of the 12 symptoms listed in the Table.² Causes of catatonia include metabolic abnormalities, endocrine disorders, drug intoxication, neurodevelopmental disorders, medication adverse effects, psychosis, and mood disorders.^1,3

A subtype of this syndrome, excited catatonia, can present with restlessness, agitation, emotional lability, poor sleep, and altered mental status in addition to the more typical symptoms.^1,4 Because excited catatonia can resemble mania or psychosis, it is particularly challenging to identify the underlying disorder causing it and appropriate treatment. Fink et al⁴ discussed how clinicians have interpreted the different presentations of excited catatonia to gain insight into the underlying diagnosis. If the patient’s thought process appears disorganized, psychosis may be suspected.⁴ If the patient is delusional and grandiose, they may be manic, and when altered mental status dominates the presentation, delirium may be the culprit.⁴

Regardless of the underlying cause, the first step is to treat the catatonia. Benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are the most well validated treatments for catatonia and have been used to treat excited catatonia.¹ Excited catatonia is often misdiagnosed and subsequently mistreated. In the following 3 cases, excited catatonia was successfully identified and treated using the same approach (Figure).

Case 1

Mr. A, age 27, has a history of bipolar I disorder. He was brought to the hospital by ambulance after being found to be yelling and acting belligerently, and he was admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit for manic decompensation due to medication nonadherence. He was started on divalproex sodium 500 mg twice a day for mood stabilization, risperidone 1 mg twice a day for adjunct mood stabilization and psychosis, and lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day for agitation. Mr. A exhibited odd behavior; he would take off his clothes in the hallway, run around the unit, and randomly yell at staff or to himself. At other times, he would stay silent, repeat the same statements, or oddly posture in the hallway for minutes at a time. These behaviors were seen primarily in the hour or 2 preceding lorazepam administration and improved after he received lorazepam.

Mr. A’s treating team completed the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), which yielded a positive catatonia screen of 7/14. As a result, divalproex sodium and risperidone were held, and lorazepam was increased to 2 mg twice a day.

After several days, Mr. A was no longer acting oddly and was able to speak more spontaneously; however, he began to exhibit overt signs of mania. He would speak rapidly and make grandiose claims about managing millions of dollars as the CEO of a famous company. Divalproex sodium was restarted at 500 mg twice a day and increased to 500 mg 3 times a day for mood stabilization. Mr. A continued to receive lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day for catatonia, and risperidone was restarted at 1 mg twice a day to more effectively target his manic symptoms. Risperidone was increased to 2 mg twice a day. After this change, Mr. A’s grandiosity dissipated, his speech normalized, and his thought process became organized. He was discharged on lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day, divalproex sodium 500 mg 3 times a day, and risperidone 2 mg twice a day. Mr. A’s length of stay (LOS) for this admission was 11 days.

Continue to: Case 2

Case 2

Mr. B, age 49, presented with irritability and odd posturing. He has a history of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type for which he was receiving a maintenance regimen of lithium 600 mg/d at bedtime and risperidone 2 mg/d at bedtime. He had multiple previous psychiatric admissions for catatonia. On this admission, Mr. B was irritable and difficult to redirect. He yelled at staff members and had a stiff gait. The BFCRS yielded a positive screening score of 3/14 and a severity score of 8/23. As a result, the treatment team conducted a lorazepam challenge.

After Mr. B received lorazepam 1 mg IM, his thought organization and irritability improved, which allowed him to have a coherent conversation with the interviewer. His gait stiffness also improved. His risperidone and lithium were held, and oral lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day was started for catatonia. Lorazepam was gradually increased to 4 mg 3 times a day. Mr. B became euthymic and redirectable, and had an improved gait. However, he was also tangential and hyperverbal; these symptoms were indicative of the underlying mania that precipitated his catatonia.

Divalproex sodium extended release (ER) was started and increased to 1,500 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization. Lithium was restarted and increased to 300 mg twice a day for adjunct mood stabilization. Risperidone was not restarted. Toward the end of his admission, Mr. B was noted to be overly sedated, so the lorazepam dosage was decreased. He was discharged on lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day, divalproex sodium ER 1,500 mg/d at bedtime, and lithium 300 mg twice a day. At discharge, Mr. B was calm and euthymic, with a linear thought process. His LOS was 25 days.

Case 3

Mr. C, age 62, presented to the emergency department (ED) because he had exhibited erratic behavior and had not slept for the past week. He has a history of bipolar I disorder, hypothyroidism, diabetes, and hypertension. For many years, he had been stable on divalproex sodium ER 2,500 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization and clozapine 100 mg/d at bedtime for adjunct mood stabilization and psychosis. In the ED, Mr. C was irritable, distractible, and tangential. On admission, he was speaking slowly with increased speech latency in response to questions, exhibiting stereotypy, repeating statements over and over, and walking very slowly.

The BFCRS yielded a positive screening score of 5/14 and a severity score of 10/23. Lorazepam 1 mg IM was administered. After 15 minutes, Mr. C’s speech, gait, and distractibility improved. As a result, clozapine and divalproex sodium were held, and he was started on oral lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day. After several days, Mr. C was speaking fluently and no longer exhibiting stereotypy or having outbursts where he would make repetitive statements. However, he was tangential and irritable at times, which were signs of his underlying mania. Divalproex sodium ER was restarted at 250 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization and gradually increased to 2,500 mg/d at bedtime. Clozapine was also restarted at 25 mg/d at bedtime and gradually increased to 200 mg/d at bedtime. The lorazepam was gradually tapered and discontinued over the course of 3 weeks due to oversedation.

Continue to: At discharge...

At discharge, Mr. C was euthymic, calm, linear, and goal-directed. He was discharged on divalproex sodium ER 2,500 mg/d at bedtime and clozapine 200 mg/d at bedtime. His LOS for this admission was 22 days.

A stepwise approach can improve outcomes

The Figure outlines the method we used to manage excited catatonia in these 3 cases. Each of these patients exhibited signs of excited catatonia, but because those symptoms were nearly identical to those of mania, it was initially difficult to identify catatonia. Excited catatonia was suspected after more typical catatonic symptoms—such as a stiff gait, slowed speech, and stereotypy—were observed. The BFCRS was completed to get an objective measure of the likelihood that the patient was catatonic. In all 3 cases, the BFCRS resulted in a positive screen for catatonia. Following this, the patients described in Case 2 and Case 3 received a lorazepam challenge, which confirmed their catatonia. No lorazepam challenge was performed in Case 1 because the patient was already receiving lorazepam when the BFCRS was completed. Although most catatonic patients will respond to a lorazepam challenge, not all will. Therefore, clinicians should maintain some degree of suspicion for catatonia if a patient has a positive screen on the BFCRS but a negative lorazepam challenge.

In all 3 cases, after catatonia was confirmed, the patient’s psychotropic medications were discontinued. In all 3 cases, the antipsychotic was held to prevent progression to neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) or malignant catatonia. Rasmussen et al³ found that 3.6% of the catatonic patients in their sample who were treated with antipsychotics developed NMS. A review of prospective studies looking at patients treated with antipsychotics found the incidence of NMS was .07% to 1.8%.⁵ Because NMS is often clinically indistinguishable from malignant catatonia,^4,6 this incidence of NMS may have represented an increased incidence in malignant catatonia.

In all 3 cases, the mood stabilizer was held to prevent it from complicating the clinical picture. Discontinuing the mood stabilizer and focusing on treating the catatonia before targeting the underlying mania increased the likelihood of differentiating the patient’s catatonic symptoms from manic symptoms. This resulted in more precise medication selection and titration by allowing us to identify the specific symptoms that were being targeted by each medication.

Oral lorazepam was prescribed to target catatonia in all 3 cases, and the dosage was gradually increased until symptoms began to resolve. As the catatonia resolved, the manic symptoms became more easily identifiable, and at this point a mood stabilizer was started and titrated to a therapeutic dose to target the mania. In Case 1 and Case 3, the antipsychotic was restarted to treat the mania more effectively. It was not restarted in Case 2 because the patient’s mania was effectively being managed by 2 mood stabilizers. The risks and benefits of starting an antipsychotic in a catatonic or recently catatonic patient should be carefully considered. In the 2 cases where the antipsychotic was restarted, the patients were closely monitored, and there were no signs of NMS or malignant catatonia.

Continue to: As discharge approached...

As discharge approached, the dosages of oral lorazepam were reevaluated. Catatonic patients can typically tolerate high doses of benzodiazepines without becoming overly sedated, but each patient has a different threshold at which the dosage causes oversedation. In all 3 patients, lorazepam was initially titrated to a dose that treated their catatonic symptoms without causing intolerable sedation. In Case 2 and Case 3, as the catatonia began to resolve, the patients became increasingly sedated on their existing lorazepam dosage, so it was decreased. Because the patient in Case 1 did not become overly sedated, his lorazepam dosage did not need to be reduced.

For 2 of these patients, our approach resulted in a shorter LOS compared to their previous hospitalizations. The LOS in Case 2 was 25 days; 5 years earlier, he had a 49-day LOS for mania and catatonia. During the past admission, the identification and treatment of the catatonia was delayed, which resulted in the patient requiring multiple transfers to the medical unit for unstable vital signs. The LOS in Case 3 was 22 days; 6 months prior to this admission, the patient had 2 psychiatric admissions that totaled 37 days. Although the patient’s presentation in the 2 previous admissions was similar to his presentation as described in Case 3, catatonia had not been identified or treated in either admission. Since his catatonia and mania were treated in Case 3, he has not required a readmission. The patient in Case 1 was previously hospitalized, but information about the LOS of these admissions was not available. These results suggest that early identification and treatment of catatonia via the approach we used can improve patient outcomes.

Bottom Line

Excited catatonia can be challenging to diagnose and treat because it can present with symptoms similar to those seen in mania or psychosis. We describe 3 cases in which we used a stepwise approach to optimize treatment and improve outcomes for patients with excited catatonia. This approach may work equally well for other catatonia subtypes.

Related Resources

• Dubovsky SL, Dubovsky AN. Catatonia: how to identify and treat it. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):16-26.
• Crouse EL, Joel B. Moran JB. Catatonia: recognition, management, and prevention of complications. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(12):45-49.

Drug Brand Names

Clozapine • Clozaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Risperidone • Risperdal
Divalproex sodium • Depakote

Catatonia is often difficult to identify and treat. The excited catatonia subtype can be particularly challenging to diagnose because it can present with symptoms similar to those seen in mania or psychosis. In this article, we present 3 cases of excited catatonia that illustrate how to identify it, how to treat the catatonia as well as the underlying pathology, and factors to consider during this process to mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes. We also outline a treatment algorithm we used for the 3 cases. Although we describe using this approach for patients with excited catatonia, it is generalizable to other types of catatonia.

Many causes, varying presentations

Catatonia is a psychomotor syndrome characterized by mutism, negativism, stereotypy, waxy flexibility, and other symptoms.¹ It is defined by the presence of ≥3 of the 12 symptoms listed in the Table.² Causes of catatonia include metabolic abnormalities, endocrine disorders, drug intoxication, neurodevelopmental disorders, medication adverse effects, psychosis, and mood disorders.^1,3

A subtype of this syndrome, excited catatonia, can present with restlessness, agitation, emotional lability, poor sleep, and altered mental status in addition to the more typical symptoms.^1,4 Because excited catatonia can resemble mania or psychosis, it is particularly challenging to identify the underlying disorder causing it and appropriate treatment. Fink et al⁴ discussed how clinicians have interpreted the different presentations of excited catatonia to gain insight into the underlying diagnosis. If the patient’s thought process appears disorganized, psychosis may be suspected.⁴ If the patient is delusional and grandiose, they may be manic, and when altered mental status dominates the presentation, delirium may be the culprit.⁴

Regardless of the underlying cause, the first step is to treat the catatonia. Benzodiazepines and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) are the most well validated treatments for catatonia and have been used to treat excited catatonia.¹ Excited catatonia is often misdiagnosed and subsequently mistreated. In the following 3 cases, excited catatonia was successfully identified and treated using the same approach (Figure).

Case 1

Mr. A, age 27, has a history of bipolar I disorder. He was brought to the hospital by ambulance after being found to be yelling and acting belligerently, and he was admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit for manic decompensation due to medication nonadherence. He was started on divalproex sodium 500 mg twice a day for mood stabilization, risperidone 1 mg twice a day for adjunct mood stabilization and psychosis, and lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day for agitation. Mr. A exhibited odd behavior; he would take off his clothes in the hallway, run around the unit, and randomly yell at staff or to himself. At other times, he would stay silent, repeat the same statements, or oddly posture in the hallway for minutes at a time. These behaviors were seen primarily in the hour or 2 preceding lorazepam administration and improved after he received lorazepam.

Mr. A’s treating team completed the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS), which yielded a positive catatonia screen of 7/14. As a result, divalproex sodium and risperidone were held, and lorazepam was increased to 2 mg twice a day.

After several days, Mr. A was no longer acting oddly and was able to speak more spontaneously; however, he began to exhibit overt signs of mania. He would speak rapidly and make grandiose claims about managing millions of dollars as the CEO of a famous company. Divalproex sodium was restarted at 500 mg twice a day and increased to 500 mg 3 times a day for mood stabilization. Mr. A continued to receive lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day for catatonia, and risperidone was restarted at 1 mg twice a day to more effectively target his manic symptoms. Risperidone was increased to 2 mg twice a day. After this change, Mr. A’s grandiosity dissipated, his speech normalized, and his thought process became organized. He was discharged on lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day, divalproex sodium 500 mg 3 times a day, and risperidone 2 mg twice a day. Mr. A’s length of stay (LOS) for this admission was 11 days.

Continue to: Case 2

Case 2

Mr. B, age 49, presented with irritability and odd posturing. He has a history of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type for which he was receiving a maintenance regimen of lithium 600 mg/d at bedtime and risperidone 2 mg/d at bedtime. He had multiple previous psychiatric admissions for catatonia. On this admission, Mr. B was irritable and difficult to redirect. He yelled at staff members and had a stiff gait. The BFCRS yielded a positive screening score of 3/14 and a severity score of 8/23. As a result, the treatment team conducted a lorazepam challenge.

After Mr. B received lorazepam 1 mg IM, his thought organization and irritability improved, which allowed him to have a coherent conversation with the interviewer. His gait stiffness also improved. His risperidone and lithium were held, and oral lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day was started for catatonia. Lorazepam was gradually increased to 4 mg 3 times a day. Mr. B became euthymic and redirectable, and had an improved gait. However, he was also tangential and hyperverbal; these symptoms were indicative of the underlying mania that precipitated his catatonia.

Divalproex sodium extended release (ER) was started and increased to 1,500 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization. Lithium was restarted and increased to 300 mg twice a day for adjunct mood stabilization. Risperidone was not restarted. Toward the end of his admission, Mr. B was noted to be overly sedated, so the lorazepam dosage was decreased. He was discharged on lorazepam 2 mg 3 times a day, divalproex sodium ER 1,500 mg/d at bedtime, and lithium 300 mg twice a day. At discharge, Mr. B was calm and euthymic, with a linear thought process. His LOS was 25 days.

Case 3

Mr. C, age 62, presented to the emergency department (ED) because he had exhibited erratic behavior and had not slept for the past week. He has a history of bipolar I disorder, hypothyroidism, diabetes, and hypertension. For many years, he had been stable on divalproex sodium ER 2,500 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization and clozapine 100 mg/d at bedtime for adjunct mood stabilization and psychosis. In the ED, Mr. C was irritable, distractible, and tangential. On admission, he was speaking slowly with increased speech latency in response to questions, exhibiting stereotypy, repeating statements over and over, and walking very slowly.

The BFCRS yielded a positive screening score of 5/14 and a severity score of 10/23. Lorazepam 1 mg IM was administered. After 15 minutes, Mr. C’s speech, gait, and distractibility improved. As a result, clozapine and divalproex sodium were held, and he was started on oral lorazepam 1 mg 3 times a day. After several days, Mr. C was speaking fluently and no longer exhibiting stereotypy or having outbursts where he would make repetitive statements. However, he was tangential and irritable at times, which were signs of his underlying mania. Divalproex sodium ER was restarted at 250 mg/d at bedtime for mood stabilization and gradually increased to 2,500 mg/d at bedtime. Clozapine was also restarted at 25 mg/d at bedtime and gradually increased to 200 mg/d at bedtime. The lorazepam was gradually tapered and discontinued over the course of 3 weeks due to oversedation.

Continue to: At discharge...

At discharge, Mr. C was euthymic, calm, linear, and goal-directed. He was discharged on divalproex sodium ER 2,500 mg/d at bedtime and clozapine 200 mg/d at bedtime. His LOS for this admission was 22 days.

A stepwise approach can improve outcomes

The Figure outlines the method we used to manage excited catatonia in these 3 cases. Each of these patients exhibited signs of excited catatonia, but because those symptoms were nearly identical to those of mania, it was initially difficult to identify catatonia. Excited catatonia was suspected after more typical catatonic symptoms—such as a stiff gait, slowed speech, and stereotypy—were observed. The BFCRS was completed to get an objective measure of the likelihood that the patient was catatonic. In all 3 cases, the BFCRS resulted in a positive screen for catatonia. Following this, the patients described in Case 2 and Case 3 received a lorazepam challenge, which confirmed their catatonia. No lorazepam challenge was performed in Case 1 because the patient was already receiving lorazepam when the BFCRS was completed. Although most catatonic patients will respond to a lorazepam challenge, not all will. Therefore, clinicians should maintain some degree of suspicion for catatonia if a patient has a positive screen on the BFCRS but a negative lorazepam challenge.

In all 3 cases, after catatonia was confirmed, the patient’s psychotropic medications were discontinued. In all 3 cases, the antipsychotic was held to prevent progression to neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) or malignant catatonia. Rasmussen et al³ found that 3.6% of the catatonic patients in their sample who were treated with antipsychotics developed NMS. A review of prospective studies looking at patients treated with antipsychotics found the incidence of NMS was .07% to 1.8%.⁵ Because NMS is often clinically indistinguishable from malignant catatonia,^4,6 this incidence of NMS may have represented an increased incidence in malignant catatonia.

In all 3 cases, the mood stabilizer was held to prevent it from complicating the clinical picture. Discontinuing the mood stabilizer and focusing on treating the catatonia before targeting the underlying mania increased the likelihood of differentiating the patient’s catatonic symptoms from manic symptoms. This resulted in more precise medication selection and titration by allowing us to identify the specific symptoms that were being targeted by each medication.

Oral lorazepam was prescribed to target catatonia in all 3 cases, and the dosage was gradually increased until symptoms began to resolve. As the catatonia resolved, the manic symptoms became more easily identifiable, and at this point a mood stabilizer was started and titrated to a therapeutic dose to target the mania. In Case 1 and Case 3, the antipsychotic was restarted to treat the mania more effectively. It was not restarted in Case 2 because the patient’s mania was effectively being managed by 2 mood stabilizers. The risks and benefits of starting an antipsychotic in a catatonic or recently catatonic patient should be carefully considered. In the 2 cases where the antipsychotic was restarted, the patients were closely monitored, and there were no signs of NMS or malignant catatonia.

Continue to: As discharge approached...

As discharge approached, the dosages of oral lorazepam were reevaluated. Catatonic patients can typically tolerate high doses of benzodiazepines without becoming overly sedated, but each patient has a different threshold at which the dosage causes oversedation. In all 3 patients, lorazepam was initially titrated to a dose that treated their catatonic symptoms without causing intolerable sedation. In Case 2 and Case 3, as the catatonia began to resolve, the patients became increasingly sedated on their existing lorazepam dosage, so it was decreased. Because the patient in Case 1 did not become overly sedated, his lorazepam dosage did not need to be reduced.

For 2 of these patients, our approach resulted in a shorter LOS compared to their previous hospitalizations. The LOS in Case 2 was 25 days; 5 years earlier, he had a 49-day LOS for mania and catatonia. During the past admission, the identification and treatment of the catatonia was delayed, which resulted in the patient requiring multiple transfers to the medical unit for unstable vital signs. The LOS in Case 3 was 22 days; 6 months prior to this admission, the patient had 2 psychiatric admissions that totaled 37 days. Although the patient’s presentation in the 2 previous admissions was similar to his presentation as described in Case 3, catatonia had not been identified or treated in either admission. Since his catatonia and mania were treated in Case 3, he has not required a readmission. The patient in Case 1 was previously hospitalized, but information about the LOS of these admissions was not available. These results suggest that early identification and treatment of catatonia via the approach we used can improve patient outcomes.

Bottom Line

Excited catatonia can be challenging to diagnose and treat because it can present with symptoms similar to those seen in mania or psychosis. We describe 3 cases in which we used a stepwise approach to optimize treatment and improve outcomes for patients with excited catatonia. This approach may work equally well for other catatonia subtypes.

Related Resources

• Dubovsky SL, Dubovsky AN. Catatonia: how to identify and treat it. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(8):16-26.
• Crouse EL, Joel B. Moran JB. Catatonia: recognition, management, and prevention of complications. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(12):45-49.

Drug Brand Names

Clozapine • Clozaril
Lithium • Eskalith, Lithobid
Lorazepam • Ativan
Risperidone • Risperdal
Divalproex sodium • Depakote

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Psychedelics are a class of substances known to produce alterations in consciousness and perception. In the last 2 decades, psychedelic research has garnered increasing attention from scientists, therapists, entrepreneurs, and the public. While many of these compounds remain illegal in the United States and in many parts of the world (Box¹), a recent resurrection of psychedelic research has motivated the FDA to designate multiple psychedelic compounds as “breakthrough therapies,” thereby expediting the investigation, development, and review of psychedelic treatments.

Box

There is growing evidence that psychedelics may be efficacious for treating a range of psychiatric disorders. Potential clinical indications for psychedelics include some forms of depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders (Table 1^2,3). In most instances, the clinical use of psychedelics is being investigated and offered in the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, though ketamine is a prominent exception. Ketamine and esketamine are already being used to treat depression, and FDA approval is anticipated for other psychedelics. An examination of the safety considerations of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is therefore highly relevant and timely.

This article examines the adverse effect profile of classical (psilocybin [“mushrooms”], lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], and N,N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT]/ayahuasca) and nonclassical (the entactogen 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine [MDMA, known as “ecstasy”] and the dissociative anesthetic ketamine) psychedelics.

Psilocybin

Psilocybin is typically administered as a single dose of 10 to 30 mg and used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy. Administration of psilocybin typically produces perceptual distortions and mind-altering effects, which are mediated through 5-HT2A brain receptor agonistic action.⁴ The acute effects last approximately 6 hours.⁵ While psilocybin has generated promising results in early clinical trials,³ the adverse effects of these agents have received less attention.

The adverse effect profile of psilocybin in adults appears promising but its powerful psychoactive effects necessitate cautious use.⁶ It has a very wide therapeutic index, and in a recent meta-analysis of psilocybin for depression, no serious adverse effects were reported in any of the 7 included studies.⁷ Common adverse effects in the context of clinical use include anxiety, dysphoria, confusion, and an increase in blood pressure and heart rate.⁶ Due to potential cardiac effects, psilocybin is contraindicated in individuals with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease.⁸ In recreational/nonclinical use, reactions such as suicidality, violence, convulsions, panic attacks, paranoia, confusion, prolonged dissociation, and mania have been reported.^9,10 Animal and human studies indicate the risk of abuse and physical dependence is low. Major national surveys indicate low rates of abuse, treatment-seeking, and harm.¹¹ In a recent 6-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) of psilocybin vs escitalopram for depression,¹² no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events reported in the psilocybin group in this trial are listed in Table 2.¹²

A recent phase 2 double-blind trial of single-dose psilocybin (1 mg, 10 mg, and 25 mg) for treatment-resistant depression (N = 233) sheds more light on the risk of adverse effects.¹³ The percentage of individuals experiencing adverse effects on Day 1 of administration was high: 61% in the 25 mg psilocybin group. Headache, nausea, fatigue, and dizziness were the most common effects. The incidence of any adverse event in the 25 mg group was 56% from Day 2 to Week 3, and 29% from Week 3 to Week 12. Suicidal ideation, suicidal behavior, or self-injury occurred in all 3 dose groups. Overall, 14% in the 25 mg group, 17% in the 10 mg group, and 9% in the 1 mg group showed worsening of suicidality from baseline to Week 3. Suicidal behavior was reported by 3 individuals in the 25 mg group after Week 3. The new-onset or worsening of preexisting suicidality with psilocybin reported in this study requires further investigation.

Lysergic acid diethylamide

LSD is similar to psilocybin in its agonistic action at the 5-HT2A brain receptors.⁴ It is typically administered as a single 100 to 200 μg dose and is used in conjunction with preintegration and postintegration psychotherapy.¹⁴ Its acute effects last approximately 12 hours.¹⁵

Continue to: Like psilocybin...

Like psilocybin, LSD has a wide therapeutic index. Commonly reported adverse effects of LSD are increased anxiety, dysphoria, and confusion. LSD can also lead to physiological adverse effects, such as increased blood pressure and heart rate, and thus is contraindicated in patients with severe heart disease.⁶ In a systematic review of the therapeutic use of LSD that included 567 participants,¹⁶ 2 cases of serious adverse events were reported: a tonic-clonic seizure in a patient with a prior history of seizures, and a case of prolonged psychosis in a 21-year-old with a history of psychotic disorder.

Though few psychedelic studies have examined the adverse effects of these agents in older adults, a recent phase 1 study that recruited 48 healthy older adults (age 55 to 75) found that, compared to placebo, low doses (5 to 20 μg) of LSD 2 times a week for 3 weeks had similar adverse effects, cognitive impairment, or balance impairment.¹⁷ The only adverse effect noted to be different between the placebo group and active treatment groups was headache (50% for LSD 10 μg, 25% for LSD 20 μg, and 8% for placebo). Because the dose range (5 to 20 μg) used in this study was substantially lower than the typical therapeutic dose range of 100 to 200 μg, these results should not be interpreted as supporting the safety of LSD at higher doses in older adults.

DMT/ayahuasca

Ayahuasca is a plant-based psychedelic that contains an admixture of substances, including DMT, which acts as a 5-HT2A receptor agonist. In addition to DMT, ayahuasca also contains the alkaloid harmaline, which acts as a monoamine inhibitor. Use of ayahuasca can therefore pose a particular risk for individuals taking other serotonergic or noradrenergic medications or substances. The acute effects of DMT last approximately 4 hours,¹⁸ and acute administration of ayahuasca leads to a transient modified state of consciousness that is characterized by introspection, visions, enhanced emotions, and recall of personal memories.¹⁹ Research shows ayahuasca has been dosed at approximately 0.36 mg/kg of DMT for 1 dosing session alongside 6 2-hour therapy sessions.²⁰

A recent review by Orsolini et al²¹ consolidated 40 preclinical, observational, and experimental studies of ayahuasca, and this compound appeared to be safe and well-tolerated; the most common adverse effects were transient emesis and nausea. In an RCT by Palhano-Fontes et al,²⁰ nausea was observed in 71% of participants in the ayahuasca group (vs 26% placebo), vomiting in 57% of participants (vs 0% placebo), and restlessness in 50% of participants (vs 20% placebo). The authors noted that for some participants the ayahuasca session “was not necessarily a pleasant experience,” and was accompanied by psychological distress.²⁰ Vomiting is traditionally viewed as an expected part of the purging process of ayahuasca religious ceremonies. Another review found that there appears to be good long-term tolerability of ayahuasca consumption among individuals who use this compound in religious ceremonies.²²

MDMA

Entactogens (or empathogens) are a class of psychoactive substances that produce experiences of emotional openness and connection. MDMA is an entactogen known to release serotonin, norepinephrine, and dopamine by inhibiting reuptake.²³ This process leads to the stimulation of neurohormonal signaling of oxytocin, cortisol, and other signaling molecules such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor.²⁴ Memory reconsolidation and fear extinction may also play a therapeutic role, enabled by reduced activity in the amygdala and insula, and increased connectivity between the amygdala and hippocampus.²⁴ MDMA has been reported to enhance feelings of well-being and increase prosocial behavior.²⁵ In the therapeutic setting, MDMA has been generally dosed at 75 to 125 mg in 2 to 3 sessions alongside 10 therapy sessions. Administration of MDMA gives the user a subjective experience of energy and distortions in time and perception.²⁶ These acute effects last approximately 2 to 4 hours.²⁷

Continue to: A meta-analysis...

A meta-analysis of 5 RCTs of MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD in adults demonstrated that MDMA was well-tolerated, and few serious adverse events were reported.²⁸ Two trials from 2018 that were included in this meta-analysis—Mithoefer et al²⁹ and Ot’alora et al³⁰—illustrate the incidence of specific adverse effects. In a randomized, double-blind trial of 26 veterans and first responders with chronic PTSD, Mithoefer et al²⁹ found the most commonly reported reactions during experimental sessions with MDMA were anxiety (81%), headache (69%), fatigue (62%), muscle tension (62%), and jaw clenching or tight jaw (50%). The most commonly reported reactions during 7 days of contact were fatigue (88%), anxiety (73%), insomnia (69%), headache (46%), muscle tension (46%), and increased irritability (46%). One instance of suicidal ideation was severe enough to require psychiatric hospitalization (this was the only instance of suicidal ideation among the 106 patients in the meta-analysis by Bahji et al²⁸); the patient subsequently completed the trial. Transient elevation in pulse, blood pressure, and body temperature were noted during sessions that did not require medical intervention.²⁹ Ot’alora et al³⁰ found similar common adverse reactions: anxiety, dizziness, fatigue, headache, jaw clenching, muscle tension, and irritability. There were no serious adverse effects.

While the use of MDMA in controlled interventional settings has resulted in relatively few adverse events, robust literature describes the risks associated with the nonclinical/recreational use of MDMA. In cases of MDMA toxicity, death has been reported.³¹ Acutely, MDMA may lead to sympathomimetic effects, including serotonin syndrome.³¹ Longer-term studies of MDMA users have found chronic recreational use to be associated with worse sleep, poor mood, anxiety disturbances, memory deficits, and attention problems.³² MDMA has also been found to have moderate potential for abuse.³³

Ketamine/esketamine

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic with some hallucinogenic effects. It is an N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonist frequently used in anesthesia, and it can induce a state of sedation, immobility, pain relief, and amnesia. In low doses, ketamine is used off-label to treat major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant depression. Most clinical trials of ketamine for depression have dosed IV ketamine from 0.5 to 1 mg/kg 1 to 3 times a week. It can also be administered as an IM, intranasal, oral, subcutaneous, or sublingual formulation.³⁴

Esketamine, the S(+)-enantiomer of ketamine, is also an NDMA antagonist. It has been developed as an intranasal formulation, typically dosed between 56 and 84 mg 2 times a week for 1 month, once a week for the following month, and once every 1 to 2 weeks thereafter.³⁵ In most ketamine and esketamine trials, these compounds have been used without psychotherapy, although some interventions have integrated psychotherapy with ketamine treatment.³⁶

Bennett et al³⁷ elaborated on 3 paradigms for ketamine treatment: biochemical, psychotherapeutic, and psychedelic. The biochemical model examines the neuro­biological effects of the medication. The psychotherapeutic model views ketamine as a way of assisting the psychotherapy process. The psychedelic model utilizes ketamine’s dissociative and psychedelic properties to induce an altered state of consciousness for therapeutic purposes and psychospiritual exploration.

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review of the common adverse effects associated with ketamine use in clinical trials for depression reported dissociation, sedation, perceptual disturbances, anxiety, agitation, euphoria, hypertension, tachycardia, headache, and dizziness.³⁸ Adverse effects experienced with esketamine in clinical trials include dissociation, dizziness, sedation, hypertension, hypoesthesia, gastrointestinal symptoms, and euphoric mood (Table 3³⁹). A recent systemic review found both ketamine and esketamine demonstrated higher adverse events than control conditions. IV ketamine also demonstrated lower dropouts and adverse events when compared to intranasal esketamine.⁴⁰

Nonclinical/recreational use of ketamine is notable for urinary toxicity; 20% to 30% of frequent users of ketamine experience urinary problems that can range from ketamine-induced cystitis to hydronephrosis and kidney failure.⁴¹ Liver toxicity has also been reported with chronic use of high-dose ketamine. Ketamine is liable to abuse, dependence, and tolerance. There is evidence that nonclinical use of ketamine may lead to morbidity; impairment of memory, cognition, and attention; and urinary, gastric, and hepatic pathology.⁴²

The FDA prescribing information for esketamine lists aneurysmal vascular disease, arteriovenous malformation, and intracerebral hemorrhage as contraindications.³⁹ Patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular conditions and risk factors may be at increased risk of adverse effects due to an increase in blood pressure. Esketamine can impair attention, judgment, thinking, reaction speed, and motor skills. Other adverse effects of esketamine noted in the prescribing information include dissociation, dizziness, nausea, sedation, vertigo, hypoesthesia, anxiety, lethargy, vomiting, feeling drunk, and euphoric mood.³⁹A study of postmarketing safety concerns with esketamine using reports submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) revealed signals for suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR] 24.03; 95% CI, 18.72 to 30.84), and completed suicide (ROR 5.75; 95% CI, 3.18 to 10.41).⁴³ The signals for suicidal and self-injurious ideation remained significant when compared to venlafaxine in the FAERS database, while suicide attempts and fatal suicide attempts were no longer significant.⁴³ Concerns regarding acute ketamine withdrawal have also been described in case reports.⁴⁴

Other safety considerations of psychedelics

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder

Hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD) is a rare condition associated with hallucinogen use. It is characterized by the recurrence of perceptual disturbances that an individual experienced while using hallucinogenic substances that creates significant distress or impairment.⁴⁵ Because HPPD is a rare disorder, the exact prevalence is not well characterized, but DSM-5 suggests it is approximately 4.2%.⁴⁶ HPPD is associated with numerous psychoactive substances, including psilocybin, ayahuasca, MDMA, and ketamine, but is most associated with LSD.⁴⁵ HPPD is more likely to arise in individuals with histories of psychiatric illness or substance use disorders.⁴⁷

Serotonin toxicity and other serotonergic interactions

Serotonin toxicity is a risk of serotonergic psychedelics, particularly when such agents are used in combination with serotonergic psychotropic medications. The most severe manifestation of serotonin toxicity is serotonin syndrome, which manifests as a life-threatening condition characterized by myoclonus, rigidity, agitation, delirium, and unstable cardiovascular functioning. Many psychedelic compounds have transient serotonin-related adverse effects, but serotonin toxicity due to psychedelic use is rare.⁴⁸ Due to their mechanism of action, classical psychedelics are relatively safe in combination with monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. MDMA is a serotonin-releasing agent that has a higher risk of serotonin syndrome or hypertensive crisis when used in combination with MAOIs.⁴⁸

Boundary violations in psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy

A key task facing psychedelic research is to establish parameters for the safe and ethical use of these agents. This is particularly relevant given the hype that surrounds the psychedelic resurgence and what we know about the controversial history of these substances. Anderson et al⁴⁹ argued that “psychedelics can have lingering effects that include increased suggestibility and affective instability, as well as altered ego structure, social behaviour, and philosophical worldview. Stated simply, psychedelics can induce a vulnerable state both during and after treatment sessions.”

Continue to: Psychedelic treatment...

Psychedelic treatments such as psilocybin and MDMA are typically offered within the context of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy, and some researchers have raised concerns regarding boundary violations,⁵⁰ given the patients’ particularly vulnerable states. In addition to concerns about sexual harassment, the financial exploitation of older adults is also a possible risk.⁵¹

Caveats to consider

Novel psychedelics therapies have demonstrated promising preliminary results for a broad range of psychiatric indications, including depression, end-of-life distress, substance use disorders, PTSD, and improving well-being. To date, psychedelics are generally well-tolerated in adults in clinical trials.

However, when it comes to adverse effects, there are challenges in regards to interpreting the psychedelic state.⁵² Some consider any unpleasant or unsettling psychedelic experience as an adverse reaction, while others consider it part of the therapeutic process. This is exemplified by the case of vomiting during ayahuasca ceremonies, which is generally considered part of the ritual. In such instances, it is essential to obtain informed consent and ensure participants are aware of these aspects of the experience. Compared to substances such as alcohol, opioids, and cocaine, psychedelics are remarkably safe from a physiological perspective, especially with regards to the risks of toxicity, mortality, and dependence.⁵³ Their psychological safety is less established, and more caution and research is needed. The high incidence of adverse effects and suicidality noted in the recent phase 2 trial of psilocybin in treatment resistant depression are a reminder of this.¹³

There is uncertainty regarding the magnitude of risk in real-world clinical practice, particularly regarding addiction, suicidality, and precipitation or worsening of psychotic disorders. For example, note the extensive exclusion criteria used in the psilocybin vs escitalopram RCT by Carhart-Harris et al¹²: currently or previously diagnosed psychotic disorder, immediate family member with a diagnosed psychotic disorder, significant medical comorbidity (eg, diabetes, epilepsy, severe cardiovascular disease, hepatic or renal failure), history of suicide attempts requiring hospitalization, history of mania, pregnancy, and abnormal QT interval prolongation, among others. It would be prudent to keep these contraindications in mind regarding the clinical use of psychedelics in the future. This is particularly important in older adults because such patients often have substantial medical comorbidities and are at greater risk for adverse effects. For ketamine, research has implicated the role of mu opioid agonism in mediating ketamine’s antidepressant effects.⁵⁴ This raises concerns about abuse, dependence, and addiction, especially with long-term use. There are also concerns regarding protracted withdrawal symptoms and associated suicidality.⁵⁵

The therapeutic use of psychedelics is an exciting and promising avenue, with ongoing research and a rapidly evolving literature. An attitude of cautious optimism is warranted, but efficacy and safety should be demonstrated in well-designed and rigorous trials with adequate long-term follow-up before routine clinical use is recommended.

Bottom Line

In clinical trials for psychiatric disorders, psychedelics have been associated with a range of cognitive, psychiatric, and psychoactive adverse effects but generally have been well-tolerated, with a low incidence of serious adverse effects.

Related Resources

• American Psychiatric Association. Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions. Updated July 2022. Accessed October 24, 2022. https://www.psychiatry.org/getattachment/d5c13619-ca1f-491f-a7a8-b7141c800904/Position-Use-of-Psychedelic-Empathogenic-Agents.pdf
• Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic & Consciousness Research. https://hopkinspsychedelic.org/
• Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS). https://maps.org/

Drug Brand Names

Esketamine • Spravato
Ketamine • Ketalar
Venlafaxine • Effexor

Resilience has been defined as the ability to adapt and thrive in the face of adversity, acute stress, or trauma.¹ Originally conceived as an inborn trait characteristic, resilience is now conceptualized as a dynamic, multidimensional capacity influenced by the interactions between internal factors (eg, personality, cognitive capacity, physical health) and environmental resources (eg, social status, financial stability).^2,3 Resilience in older adults (typically defined as age ≥65) can improve the prognosis and outcomes for physical and mental conditions.⁴ The construct is closely aligned with “successful aging” and can be fostered in older adults, leading to improved physical and mental health and well-being.⁵

While initially resilience was conceptualized as the opposite of depressive states, recent research has identified resilience in the context of major depressive disorder (MDD) as the net effects of various psychosocial and biological variables that decrease the risk of onset, relapse, or depressive illness severity and increase the probability or speed of recovery.⁶ Late-life depression (LLD) in adults age >65 is a common and debilitating disease, often leading to decreased psychological well-being, increased cognitive decline, and excess mortality.^7,8 LLD is associated with several factors, such as cerebrovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease, and inflammation, all of which could contribute to brain vulnerability and an increased risk of depression.⁹ Physical and cognitive engagement, physical activity, and high brain reserve have been shown to confer resilience to affective and cognitive changes in older adults, despite brain vulnerability.⁹

The greatest levels of resilience have been observed in individuals in their fifth decade of life and later,^4,10 with high levels of resilience significantly contributing to longevity⁵; however, little is known about which factors contribute to heterogeneity in resilience characteristics and outcomes.⁴ Furthermore, the concept of resilience continues to raise numerous questions, including:

• how resilience should be measured or defined
• what factors promote or deter the development of resilience
• the effects of resilience on various health and psychological outcomes
• which interventions are effective in enhancing resilience in older adults.⁴

In this article, we describe resilience in older adults with LLD, its clinical and neurocognitive correlates, and underlying neurobiological and immunological biomarkers. We also examine resilience-building interventions, such as mind-body therapies (MBTs), that have been shown to enhance resilience by promoting positive perceptions of difficult experiences and challenges.

Clinical and neurocognitive correlates of resilience

Resilience varies substantially among older adults with LLD as well as across the lifespan of an individual.¹¹ Identifying clinical components and predictors of resilience may usefully inform the development and testing of interventions to prevent and treat LLD.¹¹ One tool widely used to measure resilience—the self-report Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC)¹²— has been found to have clinically relevant characteristics.^1,11 Using data from 337 older adults with LLD, Laird et al¹¹ performed an exploratory factor analysis of the CD-RISC and found a 4-factor model:

• grit
• adaptive coping self-efficacy
• accommodative coping self-efficacy
• spirituality.^1,11

Having a strong sense of purpose and not being easily discouraged by failure were items characteristic of grit.^1,11 The preference to take the lead in problem-solving was typical of items loading on adaptive coping self-efficacy, while accommodative coping self-efficacy measured flexibility, cognitive reframing, a sense of humor, and acceptance in the face of uncontrollable stress.^1,11 Finally, the belief that “things happen for a reason” and that “sometimes fate or God can help me” are characteristics of spirituality. ^1,11 Using a multivariate model, the greatest variance in total resilience scores was explained by less depression, less apathy, higher quality of life, non-White race, and, somewhat counterintuitively, greater medical comorbidity.^1,11 Thus, interventions designed to help older adults cultivate grit, active coping, accommodative coping, and spirituality may enhance resilience in LLD.^1,11

Resilience may also be positively associated with cognitive functioning and could be neuroprotective in LLD.¹³ Laird et al¹³ investigated associations between baseline resilience and several domains of neurocognitive functioning in 288 older adults with LLD. Several positive associations were found between measured language performance and total resilience, active coping, and accommodative coping.¹³ Additionally, total resilience and accommodative coping were significantly associated with a lower self-reported frequency of forgetfulness, a subjective measure of memory used in this study.¹³ Together, these results suggest that interventions targeting language might be useful to improve coping in LLD.¹³ Another interesting finding was that the resilience subdomain of spirituality was negatively associated with memory, language, and executive functioning performance.¹³ A distinction must be made between religious attendance (eg, regular attendance at religious institutions) vs religious beliefs, which may account for the previously reported associations between spirituality and improved cognition.¹³

Continue to: Self-reported resilience...

Self-reported resilience may also predict greater responsivity to antidepressant medication in patients with LLD.¹⁴ Older adults with LLD and greater self-reported baseline resilience were more likely to experience improvement or remission from depression with antidepressant treatment.¹⁴ This is congruent with conceptualizations of resilience as “the ability to adapt to and recover from stress.”^14,15 Of the 4 identified resilience factors (grit, adaptive coping, accommodative coping, and spirituality), it appears that accommodative coping predicts LLD treatment response and remission.¹⁴ The unique ability to accommodate is associated with better mental health outcomes in the face of uncontrollable stress.^14,16-18 Older adults appear to engage in more accommodative coping due to frequent uncontrollable stress and aging-related physiological changes (eg, sleep changes, chronic pain, declining cognition). This could make accommodative coping especially important in this population.^14,19

The Figure, adapted from Weisenbach et al,⁹ exhibits factors that contribute to LLD, including cerebrovascular disease, neurodegeneration, and chronic inflammation, all of which can lead to a vulnerable aging brain that is at higher risk for depression, particularly within the context of stress. Clinical and neurocognitive factors associated with resilience can help buffer vulnerable brains from developing depression.

Neurobiological biomarkers of resilience in LLD

Psychobiological consequences can add to existing risk factors and bidirectionally interact to increase health risks, including LLD.⁶ Stress is the primary factor in examining resilience, whether through protective measures or its adverse effects on biological and psychological systems. Resilience is often seen as adaptive maintenance of homeostasis in the face of stress.⁶ Stress and resilience were examined over multiple studies through the lens of several biomarkers, including gross anatomical features, stress response (endocrine, immune, and inflammatory), and cardiovascular indicators.

Gross anatomical indicators: Findings from neuroimaging

The neurobiology underlying psychological resilience involves brain networks associated with stress response, negative affect, and emotional control.¹⁹ Increased amygdala reactivity and amygdala frontal connectivity are often implicated in neurobiological models of resilience.²⁰ Leaver et al²⁰ correlated psychological resilience measures with amygdala function in 48 depressed vs nondepressed individuals using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Specifically, they targeted the basolateral, centromedial, and superficial nuclei groups of the amygdala while comparing the 2 groups based on resilience scores (CD-RISC), depressive symptom severity, and depression status.²⁰ A significant correlation was identified between resilience and connectivity between the superficial group of amygdala nuclei and the ventral default mode network (VDMN).²⁰ High levels of psychological resilience were associated with lower basal amygdala activity and decreased connectivity between amygdala nuclei and the VDMN.²⁰ Additionally, lower depressive symptoms were associated with higher connectivity between the amygdalae and the dorsal frontal networks.²⁰ These results suggest a complex relationship between amygdala activity, dorsal frontal regions, resilience, and LLD.²⁰

Vlasova et al²¹ further addressed the multi­factorial character of psychological resilience. The associations between the 4 factors of resilience and the regional integrity of white matter in older adults with LLD were examined using diffusion-weighted MRI.²¹ Grit was found to be associated with greater white matter integrity in the genu of the corpus callosum and cingulum bundle in LLD.²¹ There was also a positive association between grit and fractional anisotropy (FA) in the callosal region connecting the prefrontal cortex and FA in the cingulum fibers.²¹ However, results regarding the FA in the cingulum fibers did not survive correction for multiple comparisons and should be considered with caution, pending further research.²¹

Continue to: Stress response biomarkers of resilience

Stress response biomarkers include endocrine, immune, and inflammatory indices. Stress has been identified as a factor in inflammatory responses. Stress-related overstimulation of the HPA axis may increase the risk of LLD.²² Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between increased levels of peripheral proinflammatory cytokines and depressive symptoms in older adults.²³ Interleukin-6 (IL-6) has been increasingly linked with depressive symptoms and poor memory performance in older adults.⁹ There also appears to be an interaction of inflammatory and vascular processes predisposing to LLD, as increased levels of IL-6 and C-reactive protein have been associated with higher white matter pathology.⁹ Additionally, proinflammatory cytokines impact monoamine neurotransmitter pathways, leading to a reduction in tryptophan and serotonin synthesis, disruption of glucocorticoid receptors, and a decrease in hippocampal neurotrophic support.⁹ Alexopoulos et al²⁴ further explain that a prolonged CNS immune response can affect emotional and cognitive network functions related to LLD and has a role in the etiology of depressive symptoms in older adults.

Cardiovascular comorbidity and autonomic nervous system dysfunction

Many studies have revealed evidence of a bidirectional association between cardio­vascular disease and depression.²⁵ Dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system (ANS) is an underlying mechanism that could explain the link between cardiovascular risk and MDD via heart rate variability (HRV), though research examining age-related capacities provide conflicting data.^25,26 HRV is a surrogate index of resting cardiac vagal outflow that represents the ability of the ANS to adapt to psychological, social, and physical environmental changes.²⁷ Higher overall HRV is associated with greater self-regulating capacity, including behavioral, cognitive, and emotional control.²⁸ Additionally, higher HRV may serve as a biomarker of resilience to the development of stress-related disorders such as MDD. Recent studies have shown an overall reduction in HRV in older adults with LLD.²⁹ When high- and low-frequency HRV were investigated separately, only low-frequency HRV was significantly reduced in patients with depression.²⁹ One explanation is that older adults with depression have impaired or reduced baroreflex sensitivity and gain, which is often associated with an increased risk of mortality following cardiac events.³⁰ More research is needed to examine the complex processes required to better characterize the correlation between resilience in cardiovascular disease and autonomic dysfunction.