Bipolar Disorder

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

The first randomized controlled trial testing the safety and efficacy of long-term antidepressant maintenance therapy after remission of a depressive episode in adults with bipolar I disorder has yielded mixed results.

Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.

However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.

“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.

University of British Columbia

Controversial issue

Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.

Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.

Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.

Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.

The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.

The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.

At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.

The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).

The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.

“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.

However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.

“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.

“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.

Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).

The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.

The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.

Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.

Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability. 

In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
 

Need for an individualized approach

Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.

“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.

“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.

“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”

Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center

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

Ancestry was a significant predictor of response to lithium by adults with bipolar disorder (BPD), based on data from 172 individuals.

Lithium remains the first-line treatment for BPD, but clinical improvement occurs in less than one-third of patients, and factors that might affect response, especially genetic factors, have not been well studied, wrote Ana M. Díaz-Zuluaga, MD, of University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia, and colleagues.

Previous genetic research identified four linked single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a single locus on chromosome 21 that were associated with lithium response, but the study was limited to individuals with European and Asian ancestry, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 172 adults aged 18 and older with a diagnosis of BPD I or II based on the DSM-IV-TR criteria. Participants had been taking lithium continuously for at least 6 months. Lithium response was defined using the Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with BD, also known as the Alda scale. Total Alda scale scores of 7 or higher indicated a responder phenotype; scores less than 7 were considered nonresponders.

Ancestry was determined using DNA samples and the software Structure Version 2.2, and participants were classified as Amerindian, African, or European.

The overall response rate to lithium was 15.11% (26 of 172 patients). In a univariate analysis, no significant differences emerged between responders and nonresponders in demographics or clinical characteristics. However, patients responsive to lithium were significantly less likely of African ancestry, compared with nonresponders (0.1 vs. 0.2, P = .005) and more likely of European ancestry (0.5 vs. 0.3, P = .024), and had fewer depressive episodes (2 vs. 3.9, P = .002). The difference in responders vs. nonresponders of Amerindian ancestry was not statistically significant (0.4 vs. 0.5, P = .204).

The researchers then used machine learning based on Advanced Recursive Partitioning Approaches (ARPAs) to create classification trees with and without ancestry components for predicting response to lithium. “Variable importance analysis shows that the most important predictor is the probability of Amerindian ancestry component, followed by the Amerindian and European ancestral components individual variances, and then by the African and European ancestry components,” the researchers wrote.

Without the ancestry component, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting a treatment response to lithium were 50% and 94.5% respectively, with an area under the curve of 72.2%.

“However, when ancestral components are included in the model, the sensitivity and specificity are 93 % and 84 %, respectively,” with an AUC of 89.2%, the researchers said.

Clinical predictors of treatment response included disease duration, number of depressive episodes, total number of affective episodes, and number of manic episodes.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design and potential impact of other psychotropic drugs, the researchers noted. A replication of the study in an independent dataset is needed to validate the findings, they said.

However, the study is the first known to explore the effect of ancestry on bipolar patients’ response to lithium, and suggests that ancestry components have potential predictive value in the clinical setting that could support a more personalized approach to treatment, the researchers said.

The study was supported by PRISMA U.T., Colciencias, Invitación 990 del 3 de Agosto de 2017, Código 111577757629, Contrato 781 de 2017; Convocatoria Programática Ciencias de la Salud 2014-2015 CODI-UdeA, and Convocatoria N.727-2015 Doctorados Nacionales, Colciencias, 2015. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ancestry was a significant predictor of response to lithium by adults with bipolar disorder (BPD), based on data from 172 individuals.

Lithium remains the first-line treatment for BPD, but clinical improvement occurs in less than one-third of patients, and factors that might affect response, especially genetic factors, have not been well studied, wrote Ana M. Díaz-Zuluaga, MD, of University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia, and colleagues.

Previous genetic research identified four linked single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a single locus on chromosome 21 that were associated with lithium response, but the study was limited to individuals with European and Asian ancestry, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 172 adults aged 18 and older with a diagnosis of BPD I or II based on the DSM-IV-TR criteria. Participants had been taking lithium continuously for at least 6 months. Lithium response was defined using the Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with BD, also known as the Alda scale. Total Alda scale scores of 7 or higher indicated a responder phenotype; scores less than 7 were considered nonresponders.

Ancestry was determined using DNA samples and the software Structure Version 2.2, and participants were classified as Amerindian, African, or European.

The overall response rate to lithium was 15.11% (26 of 172 patients). In a univariate analysis, no significant differences emerged between responders and nonresponders in demographics or clinical characteristics. However, patients responsive to lithium were significantly less likely of African ancestry, compared with nonresponders (0.1 vs. 0.2, P = .005) and more likely of European ancestry (0.5 vs. 0.3, P = .024), and had fewer depressive episodes (2 vs. 3.9, P = .002). The difference in responders vs. nonresponders of Amerindian ancestry was not statistically significant (0.4 vs. 0.5, P = .204).

The researchers then used machine learning based on Advanced Recursive Partitioning Approaches (ARPAs) to create classification trees with and without ancestry components for predicting response to lithium. “Variable importance analysis shows that the most important predictor is the probability of Amerindian ancestry component, followed by the Amerindian and European ancestral components individual variances, and then by the African and European ancestry components,” the researchers wrote.

Without the ancestry component, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting a treatment response to lithium were 50% and 94.5% respectively, with an area under the curve of 72.2%.

“However, when ancestral components are included in the model, the sensitivity and specificity are 93 % and 84 %, respectively,” with an AUC of 89.2%, the researchers said.

Clinical predictors of treatment response included disease duration, number of depressive episodes, total number of affective episodes, and number of manic episodes.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design and potential impact of other psychotropic drugs, the researchers noted. A replication of the study in an independent dataset is needed to validate the findings, they said.

However, the study is the first known to explore the effect of ancestry on bipolar patients’ response to lithium, and suggests that ancestry components have potential predictive value in the clinical setting that could support a more personalized approach to treatment, the researchers said.

The study was supported by PRISMA U.T., Colciencias, Invitación 990 del 3 de Agosto de 2017, Código 111577757629, Contrato 781 de 2017; Convocatoria Programática Ciencias de la Salud 2014-2015 CODI-UdeA, and Convocatoria N.727-2015 Doctorados Nacionales, Colciencias, 2015. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Ancestry was a significant predictor of response to lithium by adults with bipolar disorder (BPD), based on data from 172 individuals.

Lithium remains the first-line treatment for BPD, but clinical improvement occurs in less than one-third of patients, and factors that might affect response, especially genetic factors, have not been well studied, wrote Ana M. Díaz-Zuluaga, MD, of University of Antioquia, Medellín, Colombia, and colleagues.

Previous genetic research identified four linked single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in a single locus on chromosome 21 that were associated with lithium response, but the study was limited to individuals with European and Asian ancestry, the researchers said.

In a study published in the Journal of Affective Disorders, the researchers identified 172 adults aged 18 and older with a diagnosis of BPD I or II based on the DSM-IV-TR criteria. Participants had been taking lithium continuously for at least 6 months. Lithium response was defined using the Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with BD, also known as the Alda scale. Total Alda scale scores of 7 or higher indicated a responder phenotype; scores less than 7 were considered nonresponders.

Ancestry was determined using DNA samples and the software Structure Version 2.2, and participants were classified as Amerindian, African, or European.

The overall response rate to lithium was 15.11% (26 of 172 patients). In a univariate analysis, no significant differences emerged between responders and nonresponders in demographics or clinical characteristics. However, patients responsive to lithium were significantly less likely of African ancestry, compared with nonresponders (0.1 vs. 0.2, P = .005) and more likely of European ancestry (0.5 vs. 0.3, P = .024), and had fewer depressive episodes (2 vs. 3.9, P = .002). The difference in responders vs. nonresponders of Amerindian ancestry was not statistically significant (0.4 vs. 0.5, P = .204).

The researchers then used machine learning based on Advanced Recursive Partitioning Approaches (ARPAs) to create classification trees with and without ancestry components for predicting response to lithium. “Variable importance analysis shows that the most important predictor is the probability of Amerindian ancestry component, followed by the Amerindian and European ancestral components individual variances, and then by the African and European ancestry components,” the researchers wrote.

Without the ancestry component, the sensitivity and specificity for predicting a treatment response to lithium were 50% and 94.5% respectively, with an area under the curve of 72.2%.

“However, when ancestral components are included in the model, the sensitivity and specificity are 93 % and 84 %, respectively,” with an AUC of 89.2%, the researchers said.

Clinical predictors of treatment response included disease duration, number of depressive episodes, total number of affective episodes, and number of manic episodes.

The findings were limited by several factors including the cross-sectional design and potential impact of other psychotropic drugs, the researchers noted. A replication of the study in an independent dataset is needed to validate the findings, they said.

However, the study is the first known to explore the effect of ancestry on bipolar patients’ response to lithium, and suggests that ancestry components have potential predictive value in the clinical setting that could support a more personalized approach to treatment, the researchers said.

The study was supported by PRISMA U.T., Colciencias, Invitación 990 del 3 de Agosto de 2017, Código 111577757629, Contrato 781 de 2017; Convocatoria Programática Ciencias de la Salud 2014-2015 CODI-UdeA, and Convocatoria N.727-2015 Doctorados Nacionales, Colciencias, 2015. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is linked to a sixfold increased risk of early death from external causes and a twofold increased risk of dying prematurely from somatic disease than the general population, a new study shows.

In addition, patients with BD are three times more likely to die prematurely of all causes, compared with the general population, with alcohol-related diseases contributing to more premature deaths than cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and cancer.

The study results emphasize the need for personalized approaches to risk prediction and prevention of premature cause-specific mortality over the life-course of individuals with BD, lead investigator Tapio Paljärvi, PhD, an epidemiologist at Niuvanniemi Hospital in Kuopio, Finland, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Alcohol a major contributor to early death

A number of studies have established that those with BD have twice the risk of dying prematurely, compared with those without the disorder.

To learn more about the factors contributing to early death in this patient population, the investigators analyzed data from nationwide Finnish medical and insurance registries. They identified and tracked the health of 47,000 patients, aged 15-64 years, with BD between 2004 and 2018.

The average age at the beginning of the monitoring period was 38 years, and 57% of the cohort were women.

To determine the excess deaths directly attributable to BD, the researchers compared the ratio of deaths observed over the monitoring period in those with BD to the number expected to die in the general population, also known as the standard mortality ratio.

Of the group with BD, 3,300 died during the monitoring period. The average age at death was 50, and almost two-thirds (65%, or 2,137) of those who died were men.

Investigators grouped excess deaths in BD patients into two categories – somatic and external.

Of those with BD who died from somatic or disease-related causes, alcohol caused the highest rate of death (29%). The second-leading cause was heart disease and stroke (27%), followed by cancer (22%), respiratory diseases (4%), and diabetes (2%).

Among the 595 patients with BD who died because of alcohol consumption, liver disease was the leading cause of death (48%). The second cause was accidental alcohol poisoning (28%), followed by alcohol dependence (10%).

The leading cause of death from external causes in BD patients was suicide (58%, or 740), nearly half of which (48%) were from an overdose with prescribed psychotropic medications.

Overall, 64%, or 2,104, of the deaths in BD patients from any cause were considered excess deaths, that is, the number of deaths above those expected for those without BD of comparable age and sex.

Most of the excess deaths from somatic illness were either from alcohol-related causes (40%) – a rate three times higher than that of the general population – CVD (26%), or cancer (10%).
 

High suicide rate

When the team examined excess deaths from external causes, they found that 61% (651) were attributable to suicide, a rate eight times higher than that of the general population.

“In terms of absolute numbers, somatic causes of death represented the majority of all deaths in BD, as also reported in previous research,” Dr. Paljärvi said.

“However, this finding reflects the fact that in many high-income countries most of the deaths are due to somatic causes; with CVD, cancers, and diseases of the nervous system as the leading causes of death in the older age groups,” he added.

Dr. Paljärvi advised that clinicians treating patients with BD balance therapeutic response with potentially serious long-term medication side effects, to prevent premature deaths.

A stronger emphasis on identifying and treating comorbid substance abuse is also warranted, he noted.

Dr. Paljärvi noted that the underlying causes of the excess somatic mortality in people with BD are not fully understood, but may result from the “complex interaction between various established risk factors, including tobacco use, alcohol abuse, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, obesity, hypertension, etc.”

Regarding the generalizability of the findings, he said many previous studies have been based only on inpatient data and noted that the current study included individuals from various sources including inpatient and outpatient registries as well as social insurance registries.

“While the reported excess all-cause mortality rates are strikingly similar across populations globally, there is a paucity of more detailed cause-specific analyses of excess mortality in BD,” said Dr. Paljärvi, adding that these findings should be replicated in other countries, including the United States.
 

Chronic inflammation

Commenting on the findings, Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto, noted that there are clear disparities in access to, and quality of care among, patients with BD and other serious mental illnesses.

“Taking heart disease as an example, disparities exist at virtually every point of contact, ranging from the point of preventive care to the time it takes to be assessed in the ER, to the likelihood of receiving cardiac catheterization, to the quality of postdischarge care,” said Dr. Goldstein.

He also noted that CVD occurs in patients with BD, on average, 10-15 years earlier than the general population. However, he added, “there is important evidence that when people with BD receive the same standard of care as those without BD their cardiovascular outcomes are similar.”

Dr. Goldstein also noted that inflammation, which is a driver of cardiovascular risk, is elevated among patients with BD, particularly during mania and depression.

“Given that the average person with BD has some degree of mood symptoms about 40% of the time, chronically elevated inflammation likely contributes in part to the excess risk of heart disease in bipolar disorder,” he said.

Dr. Goldstein’s team’s research focuses on microvessels. “We have found that microvessel function in both the heart and the brain, determined by MRI, is reduced among teens with BD,” he said.

His team has also found that endothelial function in fingertip microvessels, an indicator of future heart disease risk, varies according to mood states.

“Collectively, these findings suggest the microvascular problems may explain, in part, the extra risk of heart disease beyond traditional risk factors in BD,” he added.

The study was funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Clinical Research Fellowship and by the Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Paljärvi and Dr. Goldstein report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is linked to a sixfold increased risk of early death from external causes and a twofold increased risk of dying prematurely from somatic disease than the general population, a new study shows.

In addition, patients with BD are three times more likely to die prematurely of all causes, compared with the general population, with alcohol-related diseases contributing to more premature deaths than cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and cancer.

The study results emphasize the need for personalized approaches to risk prediction and prevention of premature cause-specific mortality over the life-course of individuals with BD, lead investigator Tapio Paljärvi, PhD, an epidemiologist at Niuvanniemi Hospital in Kuopio, Finland, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Alcohol a major contributor to early death

A number of studies have established that those with BD have twice the risk of dying prematurely, compared with those without the disorder.

To learn more about the factors contributing to early death in this patient population, the investigators analyzed data from nationwide Finnish medical and insurance registries. They identified and tracked the health of 47,000 patients, aged 15-64 years, with BD between 2004 and 2018.

The average age at the beginning of the monitoring period was 38 years, and 57% of the cohort were women.

To determine the excess deaths directly attributable to BD, the researchers compared the ratio of deaths observed over the monitoring period in those with BD to the number expected to die in the general population, also known as the standard mortality ratio.

Of the group with BD, 3,300 died during the monitoring period. The average age at death was 50, and almost two-thirds (65%, or 2,137) of those who died were men.

Investigators grouped excess deaths in BD patients into two categories – somatic and external.

Of those with BD who died from somatic or disease-related causes, alcohol caused the highest rate of death (29%). The second-leading cause was heart disease and stroke (27%), followed by cancer (22%), respiratory diseases (4%), and diabetes (2%).

Among the 595 patients with BD who died because of alcohol consumption, liver disease was the leading cause of death (48%). The second cause was accidental alcohol poisoning (28%), followed by alcohol dependence (10%).

The leading cause of death from external causes in BD patients was suicide (58%, or 740), nearly half of which (48%) were from an overdose with prescribed psychotropic medications.

Overall, 64%, or 2,104, of the deaths in BD patients from any cause were considered excess deaths, that is, the number of deaths above those expected for those without BD of comparable age and sex.

Most of the excess deaths from somatic illness were either from alcohol-related causes (40%) – a rate three times higher than that of the general population – CVD (26%), or cancer (10%).
 

High suicide rate

When the team examined excess deaths from external causes, they found that 61% (651) were attributable to suicide, a rate eight times higher than that of the general population.

“In terms of absolute numbers, somatic causes of death represented the majority of all deaths in BD, as also reported in previous research,” Dr. Paljärvi said.

“However, this finding reflects the fact that in many high-income countries most of the deaths are due to somatic causes; with CVD, cancers, and diseases of the nervous system as the leading causes of death in the older age groups,” he added.

Dr. Paljärvi advised that clinicians treating patients with BD balance therapeutic response with potentially serious long-term medication side effects, to prevent premature deaths.

A stronger emphasis on identifying and treating comorbid substance abuse is also warranted, he noted.

Dr. Paljärvi noted that the underlying causes of the excess somatic mortality in people with BD are not fully understood, but may result from the “complex interaction between various established risk factors, including tobacco use, alcohol abuse, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, obesity, hypertension, etc.”

Regarding the generalizability of the findings, he said many previous studies have been based only on inpatient data and noted that the current study included individuals from various sources including inpatient and outpatient registries as well as social insurance registries.

“While the reported excess all-cause mortality rates are strikingly similar across populations globally, there is a paucity of more detailed cause-specific analyses of excess mortality in BD,” said Dr. Paljärvi, adding that these findings should be replicated in other countries, including the United States.
 

Chronic inflammation

Commenting on the findings, Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto, noted that there are clear disparities in access to, and quality of care among, patients with BD and other serious mental illnesses.

“Taking heart disease as an example, disparities exist at virtually every point of contact, ranging from the point of preventive care to the time it takes to be assessed in the ER, to the likelihood of receiving cardiac catheterization, to the quality of postdischarge care,” said Dr. Goldstein.

He also noted that CVD occurs in patients with BD, on average, 10-15 years earlier than the general population. However, he added, “there is important evidence that when people with BD receive the same standard of care as those without BD their cardiovascular outcomes are similar.”

Dr. Goldstein also noted that inflammation, which is a driver of cardiovascular risk, is elevated among patients with BD, particularly during mania and depression.

“Given that the average person with BD has some degree of mood symptoms about 40% of the time, chronically elevated inflammation likely contributes in part to the excess risk of heart disease in bipolar disorder,” he said.

Dr. Goldstein’s team’s research focuses on microvessels. “We have found that microvessel function in both the heart and the brain, determined by MRI, is reduced among teens with BD,” he said.

His team has also found that endothelial function in fingertip microvessels, an indicator of future heart disease risk, varies according to mood states.

“Collectively, these findings suggest the microvascular problems may explain, in part, the extra risk of heart disease beyond traditional risk factors in BD,” he added.

The study was funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Clinical Research Fellowship and by the Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Paljärvi and Dr. Goldstein report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is linked to a sixfold increased risk of early death from external causes and a twofold increased risk of dying prematurely from somatic disease than the general population, a new study shows.

In addition, patients with BD are three times more likely to die prematurely of all causes, compared with the general population, with alcohol-related diseases contributing to more premature deaths than cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and cancer.

The study results emphasize the need for personalized approaches to risk prediction and prevention of premature cause-specific mortality over the life-course of individuals with BD, lead investigator Tapio Paljärvi, PhD, an epidemiologist at Niuvanniemi Hospital in Kuopio, Finland, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in BMJ Mental Health.
 

Alcohol a major contributor to early death

A number of studies have established that those with BD have twice the risk of dying prematurely, compared with those without the disorder.

To learn more about the factors contributing to early death in this patient population, the investigators analyzed data from nationwide Finnish medical and insurance registries. They identified and tracked the health of 47,000 patients, aged 15-64 years, with BD between 2004 and 2018.

The average age at the beginning of the monitoring period was 38 years, and 57% of the cohort were women.

To determine the excess deaths directly attributable to BD, the researchers compared the ratio of deaths observed over the monitoring period in those with BD to the number expected to die in the general population, also known as the standard mortality ratio.

Of the group with BD, 3,300 died during the monitoring period. The average age at death was 50, and almost two-thirds (65%, or 2,137) of those who died were men.

Investigators grouped excess deaths in BD patients into two categories – somatic and external.

Of those with BD who died from somatic or disease-related causes, alcohol caused the highest rate of death (29%). The second-leading cause was heart disease and stroke (27%), followed by cancer (22%), respiratory diseases (4%), and diabetes (2%).

Among the 595 patients with BD who died because of alcohol consumption, liver disease was the leading cause of death (48%). The second cause was accidental alcohol poisoning (28%), followed by alcohol dependence (10%).

The leading cause of death from external causes in BD patients was suicide (58%, or 740), nearly half of which (48%) were from an overdose with prescribed psychotropic medications.

Overall, 64%, or 2,104, of the deaths in BD patients from any cause were considered excess deaths, that is, the number of deaths above those expected for those without BD of comparable age and sex.

Most of the excess deaths from somatic illness were either from alcohol-related causes (40%) – a rate three times higher than that of the general population – CVD (26%), or cancer (10%).
 

High suicide rate

When the team examined excess deaths from external causes, they found that 61% (651) were attributable to suicide, a rate eight times higher than that of the general population.

“In terms of absolute numbers, somatic causes of death represented the majority of all deaths in BD, as also reported in previous research,” Dr. Paljärvi said.

“However, this finding reflects the fact that in many high-income countries most of the deaths are due to somatic causes; with CVD, cancers, and diseases of the nervous system as the leading causes of death in the older age groups,” he added.

Dr. Paljärvi advised that clinicians treating patients with BD balance therapeutic response with potentially serious long-term medication side effects, to prevent premature deaths.

A stronger emphasis on identifying and treating comorbid substance abuse is also warranted, he noted.

Dr. Paljärvi noted that the underlying causes of the excess somatic mortality in people with BD are not fully understood, but may result from the “complex interaction between various established risk factors, including tobacco use, alcohol abuse, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet, obesity, hypertension, etc.”

Regarding the generalizability of the findings, he said many previous studies have been based only on inpatient data and noted that the current study included individuals from various sources including inpatient and outpatient registries as well as social insurance registries.

“While the reported excess all-cause mortality rates are strikingly similar across populations globally, there is a paucity of more detailed cause-specific analyses of excess mortality in BD,” said Dr. Paljärvi, adding that these findings should be replicated in other countries, including the United States.
 

Chronic inflammation

Commenting on the findings, Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto, noted that there are clear disparities in access to, and quality of care among, patients with BD and other serious mental illnesses.

“Taking heart disease as an example, disparities exist at virtually every point of contact, ranging from the point of preventive care to the time it takes to be assessed in the ER, to the likelihood of receiving cardiac catheterization, to the quality of postdischarge care,” said Dr. Goldstein.

He also noted that CVD occurs in patients with BD, on average, 10-15 years earlier than the general population. However, he added, “there is important evidence that when people with BD receive the same standard of care as those without BD their cardiovascular outcomes are similar.”

Dr. Goldstein also noted that inflammation, which is a driver of cardiovascular risk, is elevated among patients with BD, particularly during mania and depression.

“Given that the average person with BD has some degree of mood symptoms about 40% of the time, chronically elevated inflammation likely contributes in part to the excess risk of heart disease in bipolar disorder,” he said.

Dr. Goldstein’s team’s research focuses on microvessels. “We have found that microvessel function in both the heart and the brain, determined by MRI, is reduced among teens with BD,” he said.

His team has also found that endothelial function in fingertip microvessels, an indicator of future heart disease risk, varies according to mood states.

“Collectively, these findings suggest the microvascular problems may explain, in part, the extra risk of heart disease beyond traditional risk factors in BD,” he added.

The study was funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Clinical Research Fellowship and by the Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. Dr. Paljärvi and Dr. Goldstein report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

Bipolar disorder (BD) is a psychotic mood disorder. Like schizophrenia, it has been shown to be associated with significant degeneration and structural brain abnormalities with multiple relapses.^1,2

Just as I have always advocated preventing recurrences in schizophrenia by using long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic formulations immediately after the first episode to prevent psychotic relapses and progressive brain damage,³ I strongly recommend using LAIs right after hospital discharge from the first manic episode. It is the most rational management approach for bipolar mania given the grave consequences of multiple episodes, which are so common in this psychotic mood disorder due to poor medication adherence.

In contrast to the depressive episodes of BD I, where patients have insight into their depression and seek psychiatric treatment, during a manic episode patients often have no insight (anosognosia) that they suffer from a serious brain disorder, and refuse treatment.⁴ In addition, young patients with BD I frequently discontinue their oral mood stabilizer or second-generation antipsychotic (which are approved for mania) because they miss the blissful euphoria and the buoyant physical and mental energy of their manic episodes. They are completely oblivious to (and uninformed about) the grave neurobiological damage of further manic episodes, which can condemn them to clinical, functional, and cognitive deterioration. These patients are also likely to become treatment-resistant, which has been labeled as “the malignant transformation of bipolar disorder.”⁵

The evidence for progressive brain tissue loss, clinical deterioration, functional decline, and treatment resistance is abundant.⁶ I was the lead investigator of the first study to report ventricular dilatation (which is a proxy for cortical atrophy) in bipolar mania,⁷ a discovery that was subsequently replicated by 2 dozen researchers. This was followed by numerous neuroimaging studies reporting a loss of volume across multiple brain regions, including the frontal lobe, temporal lobe, cerebellum, thalamus, hippocampus, and basal ganglia. BD is heterogeneous⁸ with 4 stages (Table 1⁹), and patients experience progressively worse brain structure and function with each stage.

Many patients with bipolar mania end up with poor clinical and functional outcomes, even when they respond well to initial treatment with lithium, anticonvulsant mood stabilizers, or second-generation antipsychotics. With their intentional nonadherence to oral medications leading to multiple recurrent relapses, these patients are at serious risk for neuroprogression and brain atrophic changes driven by multiple factors: inflammatory cytokines, increased cortical steroids, decreased neurotrophins, deceased neurogenesis, increased oxidative stress, and mitochondrial energy dysfunction. The consequences include progressive shortening of the interval between episodes with every relapse and loss of responsiveness to pharmacotherapy as the illness progresses.^6,10 Predictors of a downhill progression include genetic vulnerability, perinatal complication during fetal life, childhood trauma (physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect), substance use, stress, psychiatric/medial comorbidities, and especially the number of episodes.^9,11

Biomarkers have been reported in both the early and late stages of BD (Table 2¹²) as well as in postmortem studies (Table 3^8,13). They reflect the progressive neurodegenerative nature of recurrent BD I episodes as the disorder moves to the advanced stages. I summarize these stages in Table 1⁹ and Table 2¹² for the benefit of psychiatric clinicians who do not have access to the neuroscience journals where such findings are usually published.

BD I is also believed to be associated with accelerated aging^14,15 and an increased risk for dementia¹⁶ or cognitive deterioration.¹⁷ There is also an emerging hypothesis that neuroprogression and treatment resistance in BD is frequently associated with insulin resistance,¹⁸ peripheral inflammation,¹⁹ and blood-brain barrier permeability dysfunction.²⁰

The bottom line is that like patients with schizophrenia, where relapses lead to devastating consequences,²¹ those with BD are at a similar high risk for neuroprogression, which includes atrophy in several brain regions, treatment resistance, and functional disability. This underscores the urgency for implementing LAI therapy early in the illness, when the first manic episode (Stage 2) emerges after the prodrome (Stage 1). This is the best strategy to preserve brain health in persons with BD²² and to allow them to remain functional with their many intellectual gifts, such as eloquence, poetry, artistic talents, humor, and social skills. It is unfortunate that the combination of patients’ and clinicians’ reluctance to use an LAI early in the illness dooms many patients with BD to a potentially avoidable malignant outcome.

Ms. A, age 20, presents to the clinic after experiencing difficulty sleeping, depressed mood, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating. Her psychiatric history includes bipolar II disorder (BD II), predominantly with depressive episodes. Ms. A’s current medications include a combination of lamotrigine 200 mg/d and bupropion extended-release 450 mg/d, and her symptoms were well maintained until 2 weeks ago. When her psychiatrist performs a medication reconciliation at her medication management appointment, Ms. A indicates she started taking an oral contraceptive, ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate, approximately 1 month ago for management of endometriosis symptoms. She is not currently taking any other medications or supplements.

Lamotrigine is indicated for epilepsy and as maintenance treatment for BD I. It is also used off-label to treat other mood disorders. After oral administration, lamotrigine is rapidly and fully absorbed with a high bioavailability (98%).The principal metabolic pathway is via glucuronic acid conjugation, leading to the major inactive metabolite 2-N-glucuronide. Minor metabolites include 5-N-glucuronide and a 2-N-glucuronide metabolite.¹

Combined oral contraceptives contain an estrogen component, typically ethinyl estradiol, and a progestin component, which varies based on the specific formulation. The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol occurs through cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4, CYP2C9, sulfation, and glucuronidation. For progestin—the second component of combined oral contraceptives and the lone com­ponent of progestin-only oral contraceptives—metabolism occurs via CYP3A4 and conjugation reactions.² This article focuses on lamotrigine interactions specifically with oral contraceptives, but it is important to note that other formulations of combined hormonal contraceptives, such as the combined contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra) and vaginal ring (NuvaRing), would be expected to interact in the same way as oral formulations.³

Bidirectional interaction

While many antiseizure medications are known to interact with and potentially decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives (Table 1^3-6), the interactions between lamotrigine and oral contraceptives is uniquely bidirectional. Combined oral contraceptives are thought to interact with lamotrigine primarily via the estrogen component, which causes increased metabolism of lamotrigine through induction of glucuronidation. This drug interaction decreases the plasma concentrations of lamotrigine in the body by up to 2-fold, resulting in an increased risk of seizures or inadequate mood stabilization.¹ This effect on metabolism is very rapid, resulting in decreases in lamotrigine concentrations within 1 week.^4,7 A recent study suggested that certain progestins may also contribute to decreased plasma levels of lamotrigine, but the mechanism for this is unknown (Table 2^3-7).⁸

Clinicians should consider increasing the lamotrigine dose (potentially as much as 2-fold) in a patient who initiates treatment with a combined hormonal contraceptive. Dose increases should not be >50 to 100 mg/d every week.¹ Collect lamotrigine blood levels before starting a hormonal contraceptive and during dose titration. While there is not a well-established therapeutic range for lamotrigine in BD, expert consensus recommends a range of 1 to 6 mcg/mL.⁸

The lamotrigine dose should be decreased if combined hormonal contraceptives are discontinued. Dose decreases should not exceed 25% of the total daily dose per week.¹ Desogestrel, a progestin-only medication, may increase exposure to lamotrigine, but this has not been observed in research with other progestins.^5,9 When starting a progestin-only pill, monitor patients for signs of lamotrigine toxicity (ataxia, diplopia, dizziness) and consider monitoring their blood levels.

An important consideration to note with combined oral contraceptives is the hormone-free interval, also known as the pill-free week. Due to the rapid effect of estrogens, the lamotrigine concentrations have been shown to rise, even double, during this hormone-free interval, so patients should be closely monitored for adverse effects.³ Some recommend use of an extended cycle regimen (with a limited hormone-free interval), or continuous cycle regimen (with no hormone-free interval) to avoid fluctuations in lamotrigine levels.^3,5 Additionally, data suggest that in patients taking lamotrigine and valproate, which inhibits glucuronidation, oral contraceptives do not cause reductions in lamotrigine concentrations.^2,5 In these instances, dose increases of lamotrigine are not needed.

Continue to: The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol...

The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and progestin are susceptible to CYP3A4 induction and increased glucuronidation. Serum concentrations may be reduced by ≥50% when used concomitantly with CYP enzyme–inducing medications, which could possibly result in subtherapeutic levels and unplanned pregnancy.³ CYP3A4 induction occurs for up to 4 weeks after discontinuation of an enzyme-inducing agent, pointing to the need for alternative or backup contraception during this time.³ Lamotrigine is not a CYP enzyme–inducing medication; it is unlikely to affect the efficacy of oral contraceptives in the same manner as other antiseizure medications. However, a study of lamotrigine and the combined hormonal contraceptive ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel demonstrated reduced exposure to levonorgestrel, resulting in breakthrough bleeding.⁵

In a study on the coadministration of lamotrigine and combined oral contraceptives, Sidhu et al⁴ observed a small mean reduction (20%) in progestin concentrations when lamotrigine was used at a dose of 300 mg/d. Although there is no research suggesting decreased effectiveness in preventing pregnancy when lamotrigine is used with combined oral contraceptives, progestin-only oral contraceptives, or progestin implants, additional or alternative contraceptive methods may be considered based on this pharmacokinetic data, particularly in patients who require lamotrigine doses ≥300 mg/d.⁵

CASE CONTINUED

Given when Ms. A started the oral contraceptive, the treatment team determines it is likely that an interaction with lamotrigine is causing her resurgence of depressive symptoms. Her care team decides to titrate the lamotrigine gradually to 300 mg/d, then 400 mg/d if needed, while carefully monitoring for signs of a serious rash. This dosage increase may help Ms. A achieve symptom remission. Monitoring plasma levels may be considered, although it is unknown what plasma level was effective for Ms. A before she started the oral contraceptive. Ms. A would need to be counseled regarding the effect of higher doses of lamotrigine on the effectiveness of the oral contraceptive.

Although it does not appear Ms. A is using the oral contraceptive specifically to prevent pregnancy, the team informs her about the possibility of unintended pregnancy with this medication combination. If Ms. A was also using the medication for this indication, alternative contraceptive options would include medroxyprogesterone acetate, levonorgestrel implants, or an intrauterine device (levonorgestrel or copper, though copper would not be effective for endometriosis symptom management). Ms. A should consult with her gynecologist regarding the most appropriate option for her endometriosis. If the decision is made to discontinue her oral contraceptive in the future, the lamotrigine dose should be decreased to her previously effective dose of 200 mg/d.

Related Resources

• Makino KK, Hatters Friedman S, Amin J. Emergency contraception for psychiatric patients. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(11):34-39,44-45. doi:10.12788/cp.0300
• MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health. You asked: is there an interaction between lamotrigine and oral contraceptives? September 29, 2015. https://womensmentalhealth.org/posts/you-asked-is-there-an-interaction-between-lamotrigine-andoral-contraceptives/

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion extended-release • Wellbutrin XL
Carbamazepine • Equetro, Tegretol
Desogestrel • Cerazette
Divalproex sodium • Depakote
Ethinyl estradiol and etonogestrel • NuvaRing
Ethinyl estradiol and norelgestromin • Ortho Evra
Ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate • Ortho Tri-Cyclen, TriNessa, others
Etonogestrel • Implanon, Nexplanon
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill • AfterPill, Plan B
Levonorgestrel intrauterine device • Mirena, Skyla
Medroxyprogesterone acetate • Depo-Provera
Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakene

Ms. A, age 20, presents to the clinic after experiencing difficulty sleeping, depressed mood, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating. Her psychiatric history includes bipolar II disorder (BD II), predominantly with depressive episodes. Ms. A’s current medications include a combination of lamotrigine 200 mg/d and bupropion extended-release 450 mg/d, and her symptoms were well maintained until 2 weeks ago. When her psychiatrist performs a medication reconciliation at her medication management appointment, Ms. A indicates she started taking an oral contraceptive, ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate, approximately 1 month ago for management of endometriosis symptoms. She is not currently taking any other medications or supplements.

Lamotrigine is indicated for epilepsy and as maintenance treatment for BD I. It is also used off-label to treat other mood disorders. After oral administration, lamotrigine is rapidly and fully absorbed with a high bioavailability (98%).The principal metabolic pathway is via glucuronic acid conjugation, leading to the major inactive metabolite 2-N-glucuronide. Minor metabolites include 5-N-glucuronide and a 2-N-glucuronide metabolite.¹

Combined oral contraceptives contain an estrogen component, typically ethinyl estradiol, and a progestin component, which varies based on the specific formulation. The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol occurs through cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4, CYP2C9, sulfation, and glucuronidation. For progestin—the second component of combined oral contraceptives and the lone com­ponent of progestin-only oral contraceptives—metabolism occurs via CYP3A4 and conjugation reactions.² This article focuses on lamotrigine interactions specifically with oral contraceptives, but it is important to note that other formulations of combined hormonal contraceptives, such as the combined contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra) and vaginal ring (NuvaRing), would be expected to interact in the same way as oral formulations.³

Bidirectional interaction

While many antiseizure medications are known to interact with and potentially decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives (Table 1^3-6), the interactions between lamotrigine and oral contraceptives is uniquely bidirectional. Combined oral contraceptives are thought to interact with lamotrigine primarily via the estrogen component, which causes increased metabolism of lamotrigine through induction of glucuronidation. This drug interaction decreases the plasma concentrations of lamotrigine in the body by up to 2-fold, resulting in an increased risk of seizures or inadequate mood stabilization.¹ This effect on metabolism is very rapid, resulting in decreases in lamotrigine concentrations within 1 week.^4,7 A recent study suggested that certain progestins may also contribute to decreased plasma levels of lamotrigine, but the mechanism for this is unknown (Table 2^3-7).⁸

Clinicians should consider increasing the lamotrigine dose (potentially as much as 2-fold) in a patient who initiates treatment with a combined hormonal contraceptive. Dose increases should not be >50 to 100 mg/d every week.¹ Collect lamotrigine blood levels before starting a hormonal contraceptive and during dose titration. While there is not a well-established therapeutic range for lamotrigine in BD, expert consensus recommends a range of 1 to 6 mcg/mL.⁸

The lamotrigine dose should be decreased if combined hormonal contraceptives are discontinued. Dose decreases should not exceed 25% of the total daily dose per week.¹ Desogestrel, a progestin-only medication, may increase exposure to lamotrigine, but this has not been observed in research with other progestins.^5,9 When starting a progestin-only pill, monitor patients for signs of lamotrigine toxicity (ataxia, diplopia, dizziness) and consider monitoring their blood levels.

An important consideration to note with combined oral contraceptives is the hormone-free interval, also known as the pill-free week. Due to the rapid effect of estrogens, the lamotrigine concentrations have been shown to rise, even double, during this hormone-free interval, so patients should be closely monitored for adverse effects.³ Some recommend use of an extended cycle regimen (with a limited hormone-free interval), or continuous cycle regimen (with no hormone-free interval) to avoid fluctuations in lamotrigine levels.^3,5 Additionally, data suggest that in patients taking lamotrigine and valproate, which inhibits glucuronidation, oral contraceptives do not cause reductions in lamotrigine concentrations.^2,5 In these instances, dose increases of lamotrigine are not needed.

Continue to: The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol...

The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and progestin are susceptible to CYP3A4 induction and increased glucuronidation. Serum concentrations may be reduced by ≥50% when used concomitantly with CYP enzyme–inducing medications, which could possibly result in subtherapeutic levels and unplanned pregnancy.³ CYP3A4 induction occurs for up to 4 weeks after discontinuation of an enzyme-inducing agent, pointing to the need for alternative or backup contraception during this time.³ Lamotrigine is not a CYP enzyme–inducing medication; it is unlikely to affect the efficacy of oral contraceptives in the same manner as other antiseizure medications. However, a study of lamotrigine and the combined hormonal contraceptive ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel demonstrated reduced exposure to levonorgestrel, resulting in breakthrough bleeding.⁵

In a study on the coadministration of lamotrigine and combined oral contraceptives, Sidhu et al⁴ observed a small mean reduction (20%) in progestin concentrations when lamotrigine was used at a dose of 300 mg/d. Although there is no research suggesting decreased effectiveness in preventing pregnancy when lamotrigine is used with combined oral contraceptives, progestin-only oral contraceptives, or progestin implants, additional or alternative contraceptive methods may be considered based on this pharmacokinetic data, particularly in patients who require lamotrigine doses ≥300 mg/d.⁵

CASE CONTINUED

Given when Ms. A started the oral contraceptive, the treatment team determines it is likely that an interaction with lamotrigine is causing her resurgence of depressive symptoms. Her care team decides to titrate the lamotrigine gradually to 300 mg/d, then 400 mg/d if needed, while carefully monitoring for signs of a serious rash. This dosage increase may help Ms. A achieve symptom remission. Monitoring plasma levels may be considered, although it is unknown what plasma level was effective for Ms. A before she started the oral contraceptive. Ms. A would need to be counseled regarding the effect of higher doses of lamotrigine on the effectiveness of the oral contraceptive.

Although it does not appear Ms. A is using the oral contraceptive specifically to prevent pregnancy, the team informs her about the possibility of unintended pregnancy with this medication combination. If Ms. A was also using the medication for this indication, alternative contraceptive options would include medroxyprogesterone acetate, levonorgestrel implants, or an intrauterine device (levonorgestrel or copper, though copper would not be effective for endometriosis symptom management). Ms. A should consult with her gynecologist regarding the most appropriate option for her endometriosis. If the decision is made to discontinue her oral contraceptive in the future, the lamotrigine dose should be decreased to her previously effective dose of 200 mg/d.

Related Resources

• Makino KK, Hatters Friedman S, Amin J. Emergency contraception for psychiatric patients. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(11):34-39,44-45. doi:10.12788/cp.0300
• MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health. You asked: is there an interaction between lamotrigine and oral contraceptives? September 29, 2015. https://womensmentalhealth.org/posts/you-asked-is-there-an-interaction-between-lamotrigine-andoral-contraceptives/

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion extended-release • Wellbutrin XL
Carbamazepine • Equetro, Tegretol
Desogestrel • Cerazette
Divalproex sodium • Depakote
Ethinyl estradiol and etonogestrel • NuvaRing
Ethinyl estradiol and norelgestromin • Ortho Evra
Ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate • Ortho Tri-Cyclen, TriNessa, others
Etonogestrel • Implanon, Nexplanon
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill • AfterPill, Plan B
Levonorgestrel intrauterine device • Mirena, Skyla
Medroxyprogesterone acetate • Depo-Provera
Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakene

Ms. A, age 20, presents to the clinic after experiencing difficulty sleeping, depressed mood, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating. Her psychiatric history includes bipolar II disorder (BD II), predominantly with depressive episodes. Ms. A’s current medications include a combination of lamotrigine 200 mg/d and bupropion extended-release 450 mg/d, and her symptoms were well maintained until 2 weeks ago. When her psychiatrist performs a medication reconciliation at her medication management appointment, Ms. A indicates she started taking an oral contraceptive, ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate, approximately 1 month ago for management of endometriosis symptoms. She is not currently taking any other medications or supplements.

Lamotrigine is indicated for epilepsy and as maintenance treatment for BD I. It is also used off-label to treat other mood disorders. After oral administration, lamotrigine is rapidly and fully absorbed with a high bioavailability (98%).The principal metabolic pathway is via glucuronic acid conjugation, leading to the major inactive metabolite 2-N-glucuronide. Minor metabolites include 5-N-glucuronide and a 2-N-glucuronide metabolite.¹

Combined oral contraceptives contain an estrogen component, typically ethinyl estradiol, and a progestin component, which varies based on the specific formulation. The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol occurs through cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4, CYP2C9, sulfation, and glucuronidation. For progestin—the second component of combined oral contraceptives and the lone com­ponent of progestin-only oral contraceptives—metabolism occurs via CYP3A4 and conjugation reactions.² This article focuses on lamotrigine interactions specifically with oral contraceptives, but it is important to note that other formulations of combined hormonal contraceptives, such as the combined contraceptive patch (Ortho Evra) and vaginal ring (NuvaRing), would be expected to interact in the same way as oral formulations.³

Bidirectional interaction

While many antiseizure medications are known to interact with and potentially decrease the efficacy of oral contraceptives (Table 1^3-6), the interactions between lamotrigine and oral contraceptives is uniquely bidirectional. Combined oral contraceptives are thought to interact with lamotrigine primarily via the estrogen component, which causes increased metabolism of lamotrigine through induction of glucuronidation. This drug interaction decreases the plasma concentrations of lamotrigine in the body by up to 2-fold, resulting in an increased risk of seizures or inadequate mood stabilization.¹ This effect on metabolism is very rapid, resulting in decreases in lamotrigine concentrations within 1 week.^4,7 A recent study suggested that certain progestins may also contribute to decreased plasma levels of lamotrigine, but the mechanism for this is unknown (Table 2^3-7).⁸

Clinicians should consider increasing the lamotrigine dose (potentially as much as 2-fold) in a patient who initiates treatment with a combined hormonal contraceptive. Dose increases should not be >50 to 100 mg/d every week.¹ Collect lamotrigine blood levels before starting a hormonal contraceptive and during dose titration. While there is not a well-established therapeutic range for lamotrigine in BD, expert consensus recommends a range of 1 to 6 mcg/mL.⁸

The lamotrigine dose should be decreased if combined hormonal contraceptives are discontinued. Dose decreases should not exceed 25% of the total daily dose per week.¹ Desogestrel, a progestin-only medication, may increase exposure to lamotrigine, but this has not been observed in research with other progestins.^5,9 When starting a progestin-only pill, monitor patients for signs of lamotrigine toxicity (ataxia, diplopia, dizziness) and consider monitoring their blood levels.

An important consideration to note with combined oral contraceptives is the hormone-free interval, also known as the pill-free week. Due to the rapid effect of estrogens, the lamotrigine concentrations have been shown to rise, even double, during this hormone-free interval, so patients should be closely monitored for adverse effects.³ Some recommend use of an extended cycle regimen (with a limited hormone-free interval), or continuous cycle regimen (with no hormone-free interval) to avoid fluctuations in lamotrigine levels.^3,5 Additionally, data suggest that in patients taking lamotrigine and valproate, which inhibits glucuronidation, oral contraceptives do not cause reductions in lamotrigine concentrations.^2,5 In these instances, dose increases of lamotrigine are not needed.

Continue to: The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol...

The metabolism of ethinyl estradiol and progestin are susceptible to CYP3A4 induction and increased glucuronidation. Serum concentrations may be reduced by ≥50% when used concomitantly with CYP enzyme–inducing medications, which could possibly result in subtherapeutic levels and unplanned pregnancy.³ CYP3A4 induction occurs for up to 4 weeks after discontinuation of an enzyme-inducing agent, pointing to the need for alternative or backup contraception during this time.³ Lamotrigine is not a CYP enzyme–inducing medication; it is unlikely to affect the efficacy of oral contraceptives in the same manner as other antiseizure medications. However, a study of lamotrigine and the combined hormonal contraceptive ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel demonstrated reduced exposure to levonorgestrel, resulting in breakthrough bleeding.⁵

In a study on the coadministration of lamotrigine and combined oral contraceptives, Sidhu et al⁴ observed a small mean reduction (20%) in progestin concentrations when lamotrigine was used at a dose of 300 mg/d. Although there is no research suggesting decreased effectiveness in preventing pregnancy when lamotrigine is used with combined oral contraceptives, progestin-only oral contraceptives, or progestin implants, additional or alternative contraceptive methods may be considered based on this pharmacokinetic data, particularly in patients who require lamotrigine doses ≥300 mg/d.⁵

CASE CONTINUED

Given when Ms. A started the oral contraceptive, the treatment team determines it is likely that an interaction with lamotrigine is causing her resurgence of depressive symptoms. Her care team decides to titrate the lamotrigine gradually to 300 mg/d, then 400 mg/d if needed, while carefully monitoring for signs of a serious rash. This dosage increase may help Ms. A achieve symptom remission. Monitoring plasma levels may be considered, although it is unknown what plasma level was effective for Ms. A before she started the oral contraceptive. Ms. A would need to be counseled regarding the effect of higher doses of lamotrigine on the effectiveness of the oral contraceptive.

Although it does not appear Ms. A is using the oral contraceptive specifically to prevent pregnancy, the team informs her about the possibility of unintended pregnancy with this medication combination. If Ms. A was also using the medication for this indication, alternative contraceptive options would include medroxyprogesterone acetate, levonorgestrel implants, or an intrauterine device (levonorgestrel or copper, though copper would not be effective for endometriosis symptom management). Ms. A should consult with her gynecologist regarding the most appropriate option for her endometriosis. If the decision is made to discontinue her oral contraceptive in the future, the lamotrigine dose should be decreased to her previously effective dose of 200 mg/d.

Related Resources

• Makino KK, Hatters Friedman S, Amin J. Emergency contraception for psychiatric patients. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(11):34-39,44-45. doi:10.12788/cp.0300
• MGH Center for Women’s Mental Health. You asked: is there an interaction between lamotrigine and oral contraceptives? September 29, 2015. https://womensmentalhealth.org/posts/you-asked-is-there-an-interaction-between-lamotrigine-andoral-contraceptives/

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion extended-release • Wellbutrin XL
Carbamazepine • Equetro, Tegretol
Desogestrel • Cerazette
Divalproex sodium • Depakote
Ethinyl estradiol and etonogestrel • NuvaRing
Ethinyl estradiol and norelgestromin • Ortho Evra
Ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate • Ortho Tri-Cyclen, TriNessa, others
Etonogestrel • Implanon, Nexplanon
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Lamotrigine • Lamictal
Levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive pill • AfterPill, Plan B
Levonorgestrel intrauterine device • Mirena, Skyla
Medroxyprogesterone acetate • Depo-Provera
Oxcarbazepine • Trileptal
Topiramate • Topamax
Valproic acid • Depakene

Primary care providers (PCPs) are addressing an increasing number of mental health visits, requiring collaborative and innovative approaches to providing psychiatric care.

This growth in the number of patients needing behavioral health–related care is likely driven by multiple factors, including a shortage of mental health care providers, an increasing incidence of psychiatric illness, and destigmatization of mental health in general, suggested Swetha P. Iruku, MD, MPH, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Medicine family physician in Philadelphia.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with mental health challenges related to the morbidity and mortality caused by the disease and to mitigation activities, including the impact of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders,” in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

From June 24 to 30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19, and symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder climbed during the months of April through June of the same year, compared with the same period in 2019, they wrote.

Even before the pandemic got underway, multiple studies of national data published this year suggested mental issues were on the rise in the United States. For example, the proportion of adult patient visits to primary care providers that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9% from 2006 to 2018, according to research published in Health Affairs. Plus, the number and proportion of pediatric acute care hospitalizations because of mental health diagnoses increased significantly between 2009 and 2019, according to a paper published in JAMA.

“I truly believe that we can’t, as primary care physicians, take care of someone’s physical health without also taking care of their mental health,” Dr. Iruku said in an interview. “It’s all intertwined.”

To rise to this challenge, PCPs first need a collaborative mindset, she suggested, as well as familiarity with available resources, both locally and virtually.

This article examines strategies for managing mental illness in primary care, outlines clinical resources, and reviews related educational opportunities.

In addition, clinical pearls are shared by Dr. Iruku and five other clinicians who provide or have provided mental health care to primary care patients or work in close collaboration with a primary care practice, including a clinical psychologist, a nurse practitioner licensed in psychiatric health, a pediatrician, and a licensed clinical social worker.
 

Build a network

Most of the providers interviewed cited the importance of collaboration in mental health care, particularly for complex cases.

“I would recommend [that primary care providers get] to know the psychiatric providers [in their area],” said Jessica Viton, DNP, FNP, PMHNP, who delivers mental health care through a community-based primary care practice in Colorado which she requested remain anonymous.

Dr. Iruku suggested making an in-person connection first, if possible.

“So much of what we do is ‘see one, do one, teach one,’ so learn a little bit, then go off and trial,” she said. “[It can be valuable] having someone in your back pocket that you can contact in the case of an emergency, or in a situation where you just don’t know how to tackle it.”
 

Screen for depression and anxiety

William J. Sieber, PhD, a clinical psychologist, director of integrated behavioral health, and professor in the department of family medicine and public health and the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said primary care providers should screen all adult patients for depression and anxiety with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), respectively.

To save time, he suggested a cascading approach.

“In primary care, everybody’s in a hurry,” Dr. Sieber said. “[With the cascading approach,] the first two items [from each questionnaire] are given, and if a person endorses either of those items … then they are asked to complete the other items.”

Jennifer Mullally, MD, a pediatrician at Sanford Health in Fargo, N.D., uses this cascading approach to depression and anxiety screening with all her patients aged 13-18. For younger kids, she screens only those who present with signs or symptoms of mental health issues, or if the parent shares a concern.

This approach differs slightly from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which suggest screening for anxiety in patients aged 8-18 years and depression in patients aged 12-18 years.
 

Use other screening tools only as needed

Dr. Sieber, the research director for the division of family medicine at UC San Diego, collaborates regularly with primary care providers via hallway consultations, by sharing cases, and through providing oversight of psychiatric care at 13 primary care practices within the UC San Diego network. He recommended against routine screening beyond depression and anxiety in the primary care setting.

“There are a lot of screening tools,” Dr. Sieber said. “It depends on what you’re presented with. The challenge in primary care is you’re going to see all kinds of things. It’s not like running a depression clinic.”

Other than the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, he suggested primary care providers establish familiarity with screening tools for posttraumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, noting again that these should be used only when one of the conditions is already suspected.

Dr. Mullally follows a similar approach with her pediatric population. In addition to the GAD-7, she investigates whether a patient has anxiety with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED). For depression, she couples the PHQ-9 with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

While additional screening tools like these are readily available online, Dr. Viton suggested that they should be employed only if the provider is trained to interpret and respond to those findings, and only if they know which tool to use, and when.

For example, she has recently observed PCPs diagnosing adults with ADHD using a three-question test, when in fact a full-length, standardized instrument should be administered by a provider with necessary training.

She also pointed out that bipolar disorder continues to be underdiagnosed, possibly because of providers detecting depression using a questionnaire like the PHQ-9, while failing to inquire about manic episodes.
 

Leverage online resources

If depression is confirmed, Dr. Iruku often directs the patient to the Mayo Clinic Depression Medication Choice Decision Aid. This website steers patients through medication options based on their answers to a questionnaire. Choices are listed alongside possible adverse effects.

For clinician use, Dr. Iruku recommended The Waco Guide to Psychopharmacology in Primary Care, which aids clinical decision-making for mental illness and substance abuse. The app processes case details to suggest first-, second-, and third-line pharmacotherapies, as well as modifications based on patient needs.

Even with tools like these, however, a referral may be needed.

“[Primary care providers] may not be the best fit for what the patient is looking for, from a mental health or behavioral standpoint,” Dr. Sieber said.

In this case, he encourages patients to visit Psychology Today, a “quite popular portal” that helps patients locate a suitable provider based on location, insurance, driving radius, and mental health concern. This usually generates 10-20 options, Dr. Sieber said, although results can vary.

“It may be discouraging, because maybe only three [providers] pop up based on your criteria, and the closest one is miles away,” he said.
 

Consider virtual support

If no local psychiatric help is available, Dr. Sieber suggested virtual support, highlighting that “it’s much easier now than it was 3 or 4 years ago” to connect patients with external mental health care.

But this strategy should be reserved for cases of actual need instead of pure convenience, cautioned Dr. Viton, who noted that virtual visits may fail to capture the nuance of an in-person meeting, as body language, mode of dress, and other clues can provide insights into mental health status.

“Occasionally, I think you do have to have an in-person visit, especially when you’re developing a rapport with someone,” Dr. Viton said.

Claire McArdle, a licensed clinical social worker in Fort Collins, Colo., noted that virtual care from an outside provider may also impede the collaboration needed to effectively address mental illness.

In her 11 years in primary care at Associates in Family Medicine, Ms. McArdle had countless interactions with colleagues seeking support when managing a complex case. “I’m coaching providers, front desk staff, and nursing staff on how to interact with patients [with] behavioral health needs,” she said, citing the multitude of nonmedical factors that need to be considered, such as family relationships and patient preferences.

These unscheduled conversations with colleagues throughout the day are impossible to have when sharing a case with an unknown, remote peer.

Ms. McArdle speaks from experience. She recently resigned from Associates in Family Medicine to start her own private therapy practice after her former employer was acquired by VillageMD, a national provider that terminated employment of most other social workers in the practice and began outsourcing mental health care to Mindoula Health, a virtual provider.

Dr. Sieber offered a similar perspective on in-person collaboration as the psychiatric specialist at his center. He routinely offers on-site support for both providers and patients, serving as “another set of eyes and ears” when there is a concern about patient safety or directly managing care when a patient is hospitalized for mental illness.

While virtual solutions may fall short of in-person management, they can offer care at a scale and cost impossible through traditional practice.

This could even be free. Zero-cost, automated software now allows individuals who are uninsured or unable to afford care at least one avenue to manage their mental health concerns.

For example, Bliss is a free, 8-session, interactive online therapy program for depression that was created by the Centre for Interactive Mental Health Solutions. The program offers a tool for monitoring mood and quizzes to test understanding of personal mental health management, among other features.

More advanced programs are emerging as artificial intelligence (AI) enables dialogues between humans and machines. This is the case with Woebot, an app that asks the user about their mood throughout the day, and responds with evidence-based strategies for managing concerns, all for free at press time.
 

Keep learning

A range of educational options and professional resources are available for primary care providers who would like to improve their knowledge of mental health care. These include formal fellowships in primary care psychiatry/behavioral health integration, free mental health webinars, and various other opportunities.

Eric Eschweiler, DNP, APRN, FNP-C, PHN, completed the University of California, Irvine, Train New Trainers (TNT) Primary Care Psychiatry (PCP) Fellowship in 2016, when he was working as a solo nurse practitioner.

“I was drowning in practice,” said Dr. Eschweiler, director of nursing and public health outreach services at Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Grand Terrace, Calif., in an interview. “I was a solo NP. There was no physician on site. We were seeing a lot of [individuals with] schizoaffective [disorder] in downtown San Bernardino, the homeless, unhoused – a lot of substance use. I felt I needed to have the skills to be able to treat them effectively. That’s what the fellowship did.”

The skills Dr. Eschweiler learned from participating in his fellowship allowed him to manage more cases of mental illness without need for referral. When a referral was needed for a complex or severe case, he had the confidence to bridge care and collaborate more effectively with psychiatric specialists.

“It was awesome, because we were able to communicate using the same language,” Dr. Eschweiler said of these collaborations. “It’s [about] talking that same language, starting those initial treatments, and then moving forward with specialty care, and vice versa. [Psychiatric specialists] would send me patients that needed medical care because of the types of medications they were taking. And I was then very well aware of those side effects and other issues that might come up from those treatments. So it’s a two-way street.”

Dr. Eschweiler was so impressed by his fellowship that he has since ushered multiple providers through the program since transitioning to an administrative role as director of nursing.

In Fargo, where psychiatric care is sparse and wait times for referral can be months long, Dr. Mullally, like Dr. Eschweiler, knew that she needed more training in mental health.

“I don’t feel like we get enough training in residency,” Dr. Mullally said. “So you do need to look at your options for further CME.”

Out of several CME courses she has taken to further her understanding of pediatric psychiatry, Dr. Mullally recommended The Reach Institute above all others, as their courses involve in-depth discussions and valuable handouts, particularly for medication selection.

“I think that a lot of the other CMEs tend to involve a lot more PowerPoint presentations,” Dr. Mullally said. “And you don’t necessarily leave with a lot of good documents. I still use my Reach handouts. I have them sitting right next to me. I use them every single day.”

Providers interested in The Reach Institute, however, should be prepared to invest both time and money, she added, citing a 2-3 day commitment, and calling it “not cheap.” To overcome these barriers, she suggested that providers get their institution to support their attendance.

For a lighter commitment, Dr. Iruku recommended the American Academy of Family Physicians CME portal, as this offers 13 online, accredited courses covering a range of topics, from adolescent health to substance abuse disorders.

Dr. Sieber suggested that primary care providers join the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association, which aims to integrate physical and behavioral health in routine practice. CFHA, of which he is a member, offers a “bevy of different resources” for interested providers, including a conference in Phoenix this October.

The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are addressing an increasing number of mental health visits, requiring collaborative and innovative approaches to providing psychiatric care.

This growth in the number of patients needing behavioral health–related care is likely driven by multiple factors, including a shortage of mental health care providers, an increasing incidence of psychiatric illness, and destigmatization of mental health in general, suggested Swetha P. Iruku, MD, MPH, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Medicine family physician in Philadelphia.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with mental health challenges related to the morbidity and mortality caused by the disease and to mitigation activities, including the impact of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders,” in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

From June 24 to 30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19, and symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder climbed during the months of April through June of the same year, compared with the same period in 2019, they wrote.

Even before the pandemic got underway, multiple studies of national data published this year suggested mental issues were on the rise in the United States. For example, the proportion of adult patient visits to primary care providers that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9% from 2006 to 2018, according to research published in Health Affairs. Plus, the number and proportion of pediatric acute care hospitalizations because of mental health diagnoses increased significantly between 2009 and 2019, according to a paper published in JAMA.

“I truly believe that we can’t, as primary care physicians, take care of someone’s physical health without also taking care of their mental health,” Dr. Iruku said in an interview. “It’s all intertwined.”

To rise to this challenge, PCPs first need a collaborative mindset, she suggested, as well as familiarity with available resources, both locally and virtually.

This article examines strategies for managing mental illness in primary care, outlines clinical resources, and reviews related educational opportunities.

In addition, clinical pearls are shared by Dr. Iruku and five other clinicians who provide or have provided mental health care to primary care patients or work in close collaboration with a primary care practice, including a clinical psychologist, a nurse practitioner licensed in psychiatric health, a pediatrician, and a licensed clinical social worker.
 

Build a network

Most of the providers interviewed cited the importance of collaboration in mental health care, particularly for complex cases.

“I would recommend [that primary care providers get] to know the psychiatric providers [in their area],” said Jessica Viton, DNP, FNP, PMHNP, who delivers mental health care through a community-based primary care practice in Colorado which she requested remain anonymous.

Dr. Iruku suggested making an in-person connection first, if possible.

“So much of what we do is ‘see one, do one, teach one,’ so learn a little bit, then go off and trial,” she said. “[It can be valuable] having someone in your back pocket that you can contact in the case of an emergency, or in a situation where you just don’t know how to tackle it.”
 

Screen for depression and anxiety

William J. Sieber, PhD, a clinical psychologist, director of integrated behavioral health, and professor in the department of family medicine and public health and the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said primary care providers should screen all adult patients for depression and anxiety with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), respectively.

To save time, he suggested a cascading approach.

“In primary care, everybody’s in a hurry,” Dr. Sieber said. “[With the cascading approach,] the first two items [from each questionnaire] are given, and if a person endorses either of those items … then they are asked to complete the other items.”

Jennifer Mullally, MD, a pediatrician at Sanford Health in Fargo, N.D., uses this cascading approach to depression and anxiety screening with all her patients aged 13-18. For younger kids, she screens only those who present with signs or symptoms of mental health issues, or if the parent shares a concern.

This approach differs slightly from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which suggest screening for anxiety in patients aged 8-18 years and depression in patients aged 12-18 years.
 

Use other screening tools only as needed

Dr. Sieber, the research director for the division of family medicine at UC San Diego, collaborates regularly with primary care providers via hallway consultations, by sharing cases, and through providing oversight of psychiatric care at 13 primary care practices within the UC San Diego network. He recommended against routine screening beyond depression and anxiety in the primary care setting.

“There are a lot of screening tools,” Dr. Sieber said. “It depends on what you’re presented with. The challenge in primary care is you’re going to see all kinds of things. It’s not like running a depression clinic.”

Other than the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, he suggested primary care providers establish familiarity with screening tools for posttraumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, noting again that these should be used only when one of the conditions is already suspected.

Dr. Mullally follows a similar approach with her pediatric population. In addition to the GAD-7, she investigates whether a patient has anxiety with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED). For depression, she couples the PHQ-9 with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

While additional screening tools like these are readily available online, Dr. Viton suggested that they should be employed only if the provider is trained to interpret and respond to those findings, and only if they know which tool to use, and when.

For example, she has recently observed PCPs diagnosing adults with ADHD using a three-question test, when in fact a full-length, standardized instrument should be administered by a provider with necessary training.

She also pointed out that bipolar disorder continues to be underdiagnosed, possibly because of providers detecting depression using a questionnaire like the PHQ-9, while failing to inquire about manic episodes.
 

Leverage online resources

If depression is confirmed, Dr. Iruku often directs the patient to the Mayo Clinic Depression Medication Choice Decision Aid. This website steers patients through medication options based on their answers to a questionnaire. Choices are listed alongside possible adverse effects.

For clinician use, Dr. Iruku recommended The Waco Guide to Psychopharmacology in Primary Care, which aids clinical decision-making for mental illness and substance abuse. The app processes case details to suggest first-, second-, and third-line pharmacotherapies, as well as modifications based on patient needs.

Even with tools like these, however, a referral may be needed.

“[Primary care providers] may not be the best fit for what the patient is looking for, from a mental health or behavioral standpoint,” Dr. Sieber said.

In this case, he encourages patients to visit Psychology Today, a “quite popular portal” that helps patients locate a suitable provider based on location, insurance, driving radius, and mental health concern. This usually generates 10-20 options, Dr. Sieber said, although results can vary.

“It may be discouraging, because maybe only three [providers] pop up based on your criteria, and the closest one is miles away,” he said.
 

Consider virtual support

If no local psychiatric help is available, Dr. Sieber suggested virtual support, highlighting that “it’s much easier now than it was 3 or 4 years ago” to connect patients with external mental health care.

But this strategy should be reserved for cases of actual need instead of pure convenience, cautioned Dr. Viton, who noted that virtual visits may fail to capture the nuance of an in-person meeting, as body language, mode of dress, and other clues can provide insights into mental health status.

“Occasionally, I think you do have to have an in-person visit, especially when you’re developing a rapport with someone,” Dr. Viton said.

Claire McArdle, a licensed clinical social worker in Fort Collins, Colo., noted that virtual care from an outside provider may also impede the collaboration needed to effectively address mental illness.

In her 11 years in primary care at Associates in Family Medicine, Ms. McArdle had countless interactions with colleagues seeking support when managing a complex case. “I’m coaching providers, front desk staff, and nursing staff on how to interact with patients [with] behavioral health needs,” she said, citing the multitude of nonmedical factors that need to be considered, such as family relationships and patient preferences.

These unscheduled conversations with colleagues throughout the day are impossible to have when sharing a case with an unknown, remote peer.

Ms. McArdle speaks from experience. She recently resigned from Associates in Family Medicine to start her own private therapy practice after her former employer was acquired by VillageMD, a national provider that terminated employment of most other social workers in the practice and began outsourcing mental health care to Mindoula Health, a virtual provider.

Dr. Sieber offered a similar perspective on in-person collaboration as the psychiatric specialist at his center. He routinely offers on-site support for both providers and patients, serving as “another set of eyes and ears” when there is a concern about patient safety or directly managing care when a patient is hospitalized for mental illness.

While virtual solutions may fall short of in-person management, they can offer care at a scale and cost impossible through traditional practice.

This could even be free. Zero-cost, automated software now allows individuals who are uninsured or unable to afford care at least one avenue to manage their mental health concerns.

For example, Bliss is a free, 8-session, interactive online therapy program for depression that was created by the Centre for Interactive Mental Health Solutions. The program offers a tool for monitoring mood and quizzes to test understanding of personal mental health management, among other features.

More advanced programs are emerging as artificial intelligence (AI) enables dialogues between humans and machines. This is the case with Woebot, an app that asks the user about their mood throughout the day, and responds with evidence-based strategies for managing concerns, all for free at press time.
 

Keep learning

A range of educational options and professional resources are available for primary care providers who would like to improve their knowledge of mental health care. These include formal fellowships in primary care psychiatry/behavioral health integration, free mental health webinars, and various other opportunities.

Eric Eschweiler, DNP, APRN, FNP-C, PHN, completed the University of California, Irvine, Train New Trainers (TNT) Primary Care Psychiatry (PCP) Fellowship in 2016, when he was working as a solo nurse practitioner.

“I was drowning in practice,” said Dr. Eschweiler, director of nursing and public health outreach services at Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Grand Terrace, Calif., in an interview. “I was a solo NP. There was no physician on site. We were seeing a lot of [individuals with] schizoaffective [disorder] in downtown San Bernardino, the homeless, unhoused – a lot of substance use. I felt I needed to have the skills to be able to treat them effectively. That’s what the fellowship did.”

The skills Dr. Eschweiler learned from participating in his fellowship allowed him to manage more cases of mental illness without need for referral. When a referral was needed for a complex or severe case, he had the confidence to bridge care and collaborate more effectively with psychiatric specialists.

“It was awesome, because we were able to communicate using the same language,” Dr. Eschweiler said of these collaborations. “It’s [about] talking that same language, starting those initial treatments, and then moving forward with specialty care, and vice versa. [Psychiatric specialists] would send me patients that needed medical care because of the types of medications they were taking. And I was then very well aware of those side effects and other issues that might come up from those treatments. So it’s a two-way street.”

Dr. Eschweiler was so impressed by his fellowship that he has since ushered multiple providers through the program since transitioning to an administrative role as director of nursing.

In Fargo, where psychiatric care is sparse and wait times for referral can be months long, Dr. Mullally, like Dr. Eschweiler, knew that she needed more training in mental health.

“I don’t feel like we get enough training in residency,” Dr. Mullally said. “So you do need to look at your options for further CME.”

Out of several CME courses she has taken to further her understanding of pediatric psychiatry, Dr. Mullally recommended The Reach Institute above all others, as their courses involve in-depth discussions and valuable handouts, particularly for medication selection.

“I think that a lot of the other CMEs tend to involve a lot more PowerPoint presentations,” Dr. Mullally said. “And you don’t necessarily leave with a lot of good documents. I still use my Reach handouts. I have them sitting right next to me. I use them every single day.”

Providers interested in The Reach Institute, however, should be prepared to invest both time and money, she added, citing a 2-3 day commitment, and calling it “not cheap.” To overcome these barriers, she suggested that providers get their institution to support their attendance.

For a lighter commitment, Dr. Iruku recommended the American Academy of Family Physicians CME portal, as this offers 13 online, accredited courses covering a range of topics, from adolescent health to substance abuse disorders.

Dr. Sieber suggested that primary care providers join the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association, which aims to integrate physical and behavioral health in routine practice. CFHA, of which he is a member, offers a “bevy of different resources” for interested providers, including a conference in Phoenix this October.

The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Primary care providers (PCPs) are addressing an increasing number of mental health visits, requiring collaborative and innovative approaches to providing psychiatric care.

This growth in the number of patients needing behavioral health–related care is likely driven by multiple factors, including a shortage of mental health care providers, an increasing incidence of psychiatric illness, and destigmatization of mental health in general, suggested Swetha P. Iruku, MD, MPH, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Medicine family physician in Philadelphia.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention noted that “the COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with mental health challenges related to the morbidity and mortality caused by the disease and to mitigation activities, including the impact of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders,” in a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

From June 24 to 30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with COVID-19, and symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder climbed during the months of April through June of the same year, compared with the same period in 2019, they wrote.

Even before the pandemic got underway, multiple studies of national data published this year suggested mental issues were on the rise in the United States. For example, the proportion of adult patient visits to primary care providers that addressed mental health concerns rose from 10.7% to 15.9% from 2006 to 2018, according to research published in Health Affairs. Plus, the number and proportion of pediatric acute care hospitalizations because of mental health diagnoses increased significantly between 2009 and 2019, according to a paper published in JAMA.

“I truly believe that we can’t, as primary care physicians, take care of someone’s physical health without also taking care of their mental health,” Dr. Iruku said in an interview. “It’s all intertwined.”

To rise to this challenge, PCPs first need a collaborative mindset, she suggested, as well as familiarity with available resources, both locally and virtually.

This article examines strategies for managing mental illness in primary care, outlines clinical resources, and reviews related educational opportunities.

In addition, clinical pearls are shared by Dr. Iruku and five other clinicians who provide or have provided mental health care to primary care patients or work in close collaboration with a primary care practice, including a clinical psychologist, a nurse practitioner licensed in psychiatric health, a pediatrician, and a licensed clinical social worker.
 

Build a network

Most of the providers interviewed cited the importance of collaboration in mental health care, particularly for complex cases.

“I would recommend [that primary care providers get] to know the psychiatric providers [in their area],” said Jessica Viton, DNP, FNP, PMHNP, who delivers mental health care through a community-based primary care practice in Colorado which she requested remain anonymous.

Dr. Iruku suggested making an in-person connection first, if possible.

“So much of what we do is ‘see one, do one, teach one,’ so learn a little bit, then go off and trial,” she said. “[It can be valuable] having someone in your back pocket that you can contact in the case of an emergency, or in a situation where you just don’t know how to tackle it.”
 

Screen for depression and anxiety

William J. Sieber, PhD, a clinical psychologist, director of integrated behavioral health, and professor in the department of family medicine and public health and the department of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego, said primary care providers should screen all adult patients for depression and anxiety with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and General Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7), respectively.

To save time, he suggested a cascading approach.

“In primary care, everybody’s in a hurry,” Dr. Sieber said. “[With the cascading approach,] the first two items [from each questionnaire] are given, and if a person endorses either of those items … then they are asked to complete the other items.”

Jennifer Mullally, MD, a pediatrician at Sanford Health in Fargo, N.D., uses this cascading approach to depression and anxiety screening with all her patients aged 13-18. For younger kids, she screens only those who present with signs or symptoms of mental health issues, or if the parent shares a concern.

This approach differs slightly from U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, which suggest screening for anxiety in patients aged 8-18 years and depression in patients aged 12-18 years.
 

Use other screening tools only as needed

Dr. Sieber, the research director for the division of family medicine at UC San Diego, collaborates regularly with primary care providers via hallway consultations, by sharing cases, and through providing oversight of psychiatric care at 13 primary care practices within the UC San Diego network. He recommended against routine screening beyond depression and anxiety in the primary care setting.

“There are a lot of screening tools,” Dr. Sieber said. “It depends on what you’re presented with. The challenge in primary care is you’re going to see all kinds of things. It’s not like running a depression clinic.”

Other than the PHQ-9 and GAD-7, he suggested primary care providers establish familiarity with screening tools for posttraumatic stress disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, noting again that these should be used only when one of the conditions is already suspected.

Dr. Mullally follows a similar approach with her pediatric population. In addition to the GAD-7, she investigates whether a patient has anxiety with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders (SCARED). For depression, she couples the PHQ-9 with the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

While additional screening tools like these are readily available online, Dr. Viton suggested that they should be employed only if the provider is trained to interpret and respond to those findings, and only if they know which tool to use, and when.

For example, she has recently observed PCPs diagnosing adults with ADHD using a three-question test, when in fact a full-length, standardized instrument should be administered by a provider with necessary training.

She also pointed out that bipolar disorder continues to be underdiagnosed, possibly because of providers detecting depression using a questionnaire like the PHQ-9, while failing to inquire about manic episodes.
 

Leverage online resources

If depression is confirmed, Dr. Iruku often directs the patient to the Mayo Clinic Depression Medication Choice Decision Aid. This website steers patients through medication options based on their answers to a questionnaire. Choices are listed alongside possible adverse effects.

For clinician use, Dr. Iruku recommended The Waco Guide to Psychopharmacology in Primary Care, which aids clinical decision-making for mental illness and substance abuse. The app processes case details to suggest first-, second-, and third-line pharmacotherapies, as well as modifications based on patient needs.

Even with tools like these, however, a referral may be needed.

“[Primary care providers] may not be the best fit for what the patient is looking for, from a mental health or behavioral standpoint,” Dr. Sieber said.

In this case, he encourages patients to visit Psychology Today, a “quite popular portal” that helps patients locate a suitable provider based on location, insurance, driving radius, and mental health concern. This usually generates 10-20 options, Dr. Sieber said, although results can vary.

“It may be discouraging, because maybe only three [providers] pop up based on your criteria, and the closest one is miles away,” he said.
 

Consider virtual support

If no local psychiatric help is available, Dr. Sieber suggested virtual support, highlighting that “it’s much easier now than it was 3 or 4 years ago” to connect patients with external mental health care.

But this strategy should be reserved for cases of actual need instead of pure convenience, cautioned Dr. Viton, who noted that virtual visits may fail to capture the nuance of an in-person meeting, as body language, mode of dress, and other clues can provide insights into mental health status.

“Occasionally, I think you do have to have an in-person visit, especially when you’re developing a rapport with someone,” Dr. Viton said.

Claire McArdle, a licensed clinical social worker in Fort Collins, Colo., noted that virtual care from an outside provider may also impede the collaboration needed to effectively address mental illness.

In her 11 years in primary care at Associates in Family Medicine, Ms. McArdle had countless interactions with colleagues seeking support when managing a complex case. “I’m coaching providers, front desk staff, and nursing staff on how to interact with patients [with] behavioral health needs,” she said, citing the multitude of nonmedical factors that need to be considered, such as family relationships and patient preferences.

These unscheduled conversations with colleagues throughout the day are impossible to have when sharing a case with an unknown, remote peer.

Ms. McArdle speaks from experience. She recently resigned from Associates in Family Medicine to start her own private therapy practice after her former employer was acquired by VillageMD, a national provider that terminated employment of most other social workers in the practice and began outsourcing mental health care to Mindoula Health, a virtual provider.

Dr. Sieber offered a similar perspective on in-person collaboration as the psychiatric specialist at his center. He routinely offers on-site support for both providers and patients, serving as “another set of eyes and ears” when there is a concern about patient safety or directly managing care when a patient is hospitalized for mental illness.

While virtual solutions may fall short of in-person management, they can offer care at a scale and cost impossible through traditional practice.

This could even be free. Zero-cost, automated software now allows individuals who are uninsured or unable to afford care at least one avenue to manage their mental health concerns.

For example, Bliss is a free, 8-session, interactive online therapy program for depression that was created by the Centre for Interactive Mental Health Solutions. The program offers a tool for monitoring mood and quizzes to test understanding of personal mental health management, among other features.

More advanced programs are emerging as artificial intelligence (AI) enables dialogues between humans and machines. This is the case with Woebot, an app that asks the user about their mood throughout the day, and responds with evidence-based strategies for managing concerns, all for free at press time.
 

Keep learning

A range of educational options and professional resources are available for primary care providers who would like to improve their knowledge of mental health care. These include formal fellowships in primary care psychiatry/behavioral health integration, free mental health webinars, and various other opportunities.

Eric Eschweiler, DNP, APRN, FNP-C, PHN, completed the University of California, Irvine, Train New Trainers (TNT) Primary Care Psychiatry (PCP) Fellowship in 2016, when he was working as a solo nurse practitioner.

“I was drowning in practice,” said Dr. Eschweiler, director of nursing and public health outreach services at Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Grand Terrace, Calif., in an interview. “I was a solo NP. There was no physician on site. We were seeing a lot of [individuals with] schizoaffective [disorder] in downtown San Bernardino, the homeless, unhoused – a lot of substance use. I felt I needed to have the skills to be able to treat them effectively. That’s what the fellowship did.”

The skills Dr. Eschweiler learned from participating in his fellowship allowed him to manage more cases of mental illness without need for referral. When a referral was needed for a complex or severe case, he had the confidence to bridge care and collaborate more effectively with psychiatric specialists.

“It was awesome, because we were able to communicate using the same language,” Dr. Eschweiler said of these collaborations. “It’s [about] talking that same language, starting those initial treatments, and then moving forward with specialty care, and vice versa. [Psychiatric specialists] would send me patients that needed medical care because of the types of medications they were taking. And I was then very well aware of those side effects and other issues that might come up from those treatments. So it’s a two-way street.”

Dr. Eschweiler was so impressed by his fellowship that he has since ushered multiple providers through the program since transitioning to an administrative role as director of nursing.

In Fargo, where psychiatric care is sparse and wait times for referral can be months long, Dr. Mullally, like Dr. Eschweiler, knew that she needed more training in mental health.

“I don’t feel like we get enough training in residency,” Dr. Mullally said. “So you do need to look at your options for further CME.”

Out of several CME courses she has taken to further her understanding of pediatric psychiatry, Dr. Mullally recommended The Reach Institute above all others, as their courses involve in-depth discussions and valuable handouts, particularly for medication selection.

“I think that a lot of the other CMEs tend to involve a lot more PowerPoint presentations,” Dr. Mullally said. “And you don’t necessarily leave with a lot of good documents. I still use my Reach handouts. I have them sitting right next to me. I use them every single day.”

Providers interested in The Reach Institute, however, should be prepared to invest both time and money, she added, citing a 2-3 day commitment, and calling it “not cheap.” To overcome these barriers, she suggested that providers get their institution to support their attendance.

For a lighter commitment, Dr. Iruku recommended the American Academy of Family Physicians CME portal, as this offers 13 online, accredited courses covering a range of topics, from adolescent health to substance abuse disorders.

Dr. Sieber suggested that primary care providers join the Collaborative Family Healthcare Association, which aims to integrate physical and behavioral health in routine practice. CFHA, of which he is a member, offers a “bevy of different resources” for interested providers, including a conference in Phoenix this October.

The interviewees disclosed no conflicts of interest.

An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

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

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

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

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

An early predictor of cardiovascular disease (CVD) has been found in youth with bipolar disorder (BD), in new findings that may explain the “excessive and premature mortality” related to heart disease in this patient population.

The investigators found that higher reactive hyperemia index (RHI) scores, a measure of endothelial function, were tied to mood severity in patients with higher mania, but not depression scores. These findings persisted even after accounting for medications, obesity, and other cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs).

“From a clinical perspective, these findings highlight the potential value of integrating vascular health in the assessment and management of youth with BD, and from a scientific perspective, these findings call for additional research focused on shared biological mechanisms linking vascular health and mood symptoms of BD,” senior investigator Benjamin Goldstein, MD, PhD, full professor of psychiatry, pharmacology, and psychological clinical science, University of Toronto, said in an interview.

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

‘Excessively present’

BD is associated with “excessive and premature cardiovascular mortality” and CVD is “excessively present” in BD, exceeding what can be explained by traditional cardiovascular risk factors, psychiatric medications, and substance use, the researchers noted.

“In adults, more severe mood symptoms increase the risk of future CVD. Our focus on endothelial function rose due to the fact that CVD is rare in youth, whereas endothelial dysfunction – considered a precursor of CVD – can be assessed in youth,” said Dr. Goldstein, who holds the RBC Investments Chair in children’s mental health and developmental psychopathology at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, where he is director of the Centre for Youth Bipolar Disorder.

For this reason, he and his colleagues were “interested in researching whether endothelial dysfunction is associated with mood symptoms in youth with BD.” Ultimately, the motivation was to “inspire new therapeutic opportunities that may improve both cardiovascular and mental health simultaneously.”

To investigate the question, the researchers studied 209 youth aged 13-20 years (n = 114 with BD and 94 healthy controls [HCs]).

In the BD group, there were 34 BD-euthymia, 36 BD-depressed, and 44 BD-hypomanic/mixed; and within the groups who had depression or hypomania/mixed features, 72 were experiencing clinically significant depression. 

Participants had to be free of chronic inflammatory illness, use of medications that might be addressing traditional CVRFs, recent infectious diseases, or neurologic conditions.

Participants’ bipolar symptoms, psychosocial functioning, and family history were assessed. In addition, they were asked about treatment, physical and/or sexual abuse, smoking status, and socioeconomic status. Height, weight, waist circumference, blood pressure, and blood tests to assess CVRFs, including C-reactive protein (CRP), were also assessed. RHI was measured via pulse amplitude tonometry, with lower values indicating poorer endothelial function.
 

Positive affect beneficial?

Compared with HCs, there were fewer White participants in the BD group (78% vs. 55%; P < .001). The BD group also had higher Tanner stage development scores (stage 5: 65% vs. 35%; P = .03; V = 0.21), higher body mass index (BMI, 24.4 ± 4.6 vs. 22.0 ± 4.2; P < .001; d = 0.53), and higher CRP (1.94 ± 3.99 vs. 0.76 ± 0.86; P = .009; d = –0.40).

After controlling for age, sex, and BMI (F_3,202 = 4.47; P = .005; n_p²  = 0.06), the researchers found significant between-group differences in RHI.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed RHI to be significantly lower in the BD-depressed versus the HC group (P = .04; d = 0.4). Moreover, the BD-hypomanic/mixed group had significantly higher RHI, compared with the other BD groups and the HC group.

RHI was associated with higher mania scores (beta, 0.26; P = .006), but there was no similar significant association with depression mood scores (beta, 0.01; P = .90).

The mood state differences in RHI and the RHI-mania association remained significant in sensitivity analyses examining the effect of current medication use as well as CVRFs, including lipids, CRP, and blood pressure on RHI.

“We found that youth with BD experiencing a depressive episode had lower endothelial function, whereas youth with BD experiencing a hypomanic/mixed episode had higher endothelial function, as compared to healthy youth,” Dr. Goldstein said.

There are several mechanisms potentially underlying the association between endothelial function and hypomania, the investigators noted. For example, positive affect is associated with increased endothelial function in normative samples, so hypomanic symptoms, including elation, may have similar beneficial associations, although those benefits likely do not extend to mania, which has been associated with cardiovascular risk.

They also point to several limitations in the study. The cross-sectional design “precludes making inferences regarding the temporal relationship between RHI and mood.” Moreover, the study focused only on hypomania, so “we cannot draw conclusions about mania.” In addition, the HC group had a “significantly higher proportion” of White participants, and a lower Tanner stage, so it “may not be a representative control sample.”

Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that the study “adds to the existing evidence for the potential value of integrating cardiovascular-related therapeutic approaches in BD,” noting that further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms of the association.
 

Observable changes in youth

In a comment, Jess G Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD, head and chief, department of mental health, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, noted that individuals with BD “have a much higher risk of CVD, which tends to develop earlier and shortens life expectancy by more than a decade.” 

This cardiovascular risk “appears to be acquired over the long-term course of illness and proportionate to the persistence and severity of mood symptoms, which implies that mood syndromes, such as depression and mania, themselves may induce changes in the body relevant to CVD,” said Dr. Fiedorowicz, who is also a professor in the department of psychiatry and senior research chair in adult psychiatry at the Brain and Mind Research Institute, University of Ottawa, and was not involved with the study.

The study “adds to a growing body of evidence that mood syndromes may enact physiological changes that may be relevant to risk of CVD. One important aspect of this study is that this can even be observed in young sample,” he said.

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and a Miner’s Lamp Innovation Fund from the University of Toronto. Dr. Goldstein and coauthors declare no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fiedorowicz receives an honorarium from Elsevier for his work as editor-in-chief of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research.

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

SAN FRANCISCO – Physically violent events at an inpatient psychiatric unit in Pennsylvania dropped by 59.8% in the months after it implemented a plan to administer antipsychotic medications to patients more quickly – both in the emergency department and in the unit – and improve handoffs between providers and nurses, researchers reported.

“We were able to significantly reduce violence,” said Michael Chen, MD, Lehigh Valley Health Network psychiatry resident and lead author of an abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “Furthermore, the interventions were effective in reducing episodes of violence rather than redirecting it. And the overall feeling of safety on the inpatient psychiatric unit improved.”

Violence is common in psychiatric units, although it’s not clear how often it occurs. “The data has shown that patients with a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia or a mood disorder with psychotic features such as bipolar disorder tend to account for most of the episodes of violence on the unit,” Dr. Chen said in an interview. “This inevitably results in a higher risk for violence on inpatient psychiatric units as a large portion of patients admitted to inpatient psychiatric units have these diagnoses.”
 

Enlisting the pharmacy department

For the new study, investigators tracked episodes of violence – including verbal attacks – at an Allentown, Penn.–area inpatient psychiatric unit from December 2021 to September 2022. According to Dr. Chen, unit leaders implemented the new plan in May 2022 in the wake of higher levels of violence during the COVID-19 pandemic and the concurrent staff shortages.

Clinic leaders sought to identify potentially aggressive patients in the emergency department and treat them with antipsychotics prior to admission to the psychiatric unit, ensure that the pharmacy provides access to as-needed or standing medications, and develop “standardized huddles to ensure proper handoffs between providers and nurses.”

Medical staff relied on the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression scale, risk factors, and clinical judgment to determine which patients had the potential to be violent, Dr. Chen said.

As for treatment, first-line antipsychotics are typically given orally, but they can be injected if patients must be treated over their objections, he said. “We would only consider starting standing medications against objections in patients who are involuntarily committed.”

During the 5 months before the intervention was implemented versus the following 5 months, the average monthly number of physically violent events in the psychiatric unit fell from 12.4 to 4.8 (–61.1%, P = .04), and verbal threats dipped from 7.2 to 4 (–44.4%, P = .15). The total average number of violent events per month, including violence against property, fell from an average of 25.4 to 10.2 (–59.8%, P = .03).

The total patient population didn’t vary significantly over time, Dr. Chen said. “Thus, the decrease in violence was not correlated with a decrease in patient load.”

While “there were concerns that there would just be higher episodes of violence in the ED while psychiatry patients awaited placement,” Dr. Chen said, the numbers actually showed reductions in violence in that setting. The average number of physically violent events per month in the ED fell from 49.6 to 39.4 (–20.6%, P = .03). Verbal threats dropped from 38 to 34.6 (–8.9%, P = .5) and overall violent events dipped from 87.6 to 74 (–15.6%, P = .08).

Why did the interventions seem to work? “Standing doses as well as as-needed medications started for psychiatric patients in the emergency department have been crucial to prevent delay of care,” Dr. Chen said. Enlisting the pharmacy department “helped ensure all patients had appropriate as-needed medications to prevent them from decompensating on the units,” he added, and “involvement of nursing and ancillary staff in high-risk rounds allowed the treatment team to rapidly anticipate and address concerns.”

The study authors also reported that nursing staff felt safer. Scores on a perception-of-safety scale – with 1 most unsafe and 7 most safe – improved from 3.3 to 4.2 (+27%, P < .01).

Dr. Chen said there was a “minimal” increase in cost to implement the intervention, although coordination is necessary. “The emergency department and psychiatry department have to work together to initiate treatment in the ED while awaiting beds,” he said. “The treatment team needs to communicate concerns during rounds. The pharmacist and psychiatrist need to work together to ensure that proper as-needed medications are available.”
 

‘Good clinical practice’

In an interview, psychiatrist Mark J. Russ, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Westchester Behavioral Health and Weill Cornell Medical College, said violent incidents in inpatient psychiatric units are influenced by many factors, such as history of violence, substance use, history of trauma, psychosis/paranoia, and medical problems.

The units themselves can contribute to the risk of violence through power struggles and lack of attention paid to respect and dignity, he said. “Attention to these issues is important in reducing violence,” he noted. “Generalized training for staff in de-escalation techniques and trauma-informed care is imperative. There may be value in developing specialized psychiatric ICUs where staff are meticulously trained in these and other approaches.”

The new study, Dr. Russ said, suggests that “early identification of patients at risk of engaging in violent behavior on the inpatient unit, pharmacologic treatment, and good communication helps reduce violence.” The findings, he added, suggest that “interventions known to constitute good clinical practice are indeed helpful.”

However, he cautioned that “treating all at-risk patients with antipsychotics, regardless of their psychiatric diagnosis, might well be considered chemical restraint, depending on [the] circumstances.”

There was no study funding. The study authors and Dr. Russ have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Physically violent events at an inpatient psychiatric unit in Pennsylvania dropped by 59.8% in the months after it implemented a plan to administer antipsychotic medications to patients more quickly – both in the emergency department and in the unit – and improve handoffs between providers and nurses, researchers reported.

“We were able to significantly reduce violence,” said Michael Chen, MD, Lehigh Valley Health Network psychiatry resident and lead author of an abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “Furthermore, the interventions were effective in reducing episodes of violence rather than redirecting it. And the overall feeling of safety on the inpatient psychiatric unit improved.”

Violence is common in psychiatric units, although it’s not clear how often it occurs. “The data has shown that patients with a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia or a mood disorder with psychotic features such as bipolar disorder tend to account for most of the episodes of violence on the unit,” Dr. Chen said in an interview. “This inevitably results in a higher risk for violence on inpatient psychiatric units as a large portion of patients admitted to inpatient psychiatric units have these diagnoses.”
 

Enlisting the pharmacy department

For the new study, investigators tracked episodes of violence – including verbal attacks – at an Allentown, Penn.–area inpatient psychiatric unit from December 2021 to September 2022. According to Dr. Chen, unit leaders implemented the new plan in May 2022 in the wake of higher levels of violence during the COVID-19 pandemic and the concurrent staff shortages.

Clinic leaders sought to identify potentially aggressive patients in the emergency department and treat them with antipsychotics prior to admission to the psychiatric unit, ensure that the pharmacy provides access to as-needed or standing medications, and develop “standardized huddles to ensure proper handoffs between providers and nurses.”

Medical staff relied on the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression scale, risk factors, and clinical judgment to determine which patients had the potential to be violent, Dr. Chen said.

As for treatment, first-line antipsychotics are typically given orally, but they can be injected if patients must be treated over their objections, he said. “We would only consider starting standing medications against objections in patients who are involuntarily committed.”

During the 5 months before the intervention was implemented versus the following 5 months, the average monthly number of physically violent events in the psychiatric unit fell from 12.4 to 4.8 (–61.1%, P = .04), and verbal threats dipped from 7.2 to 4 (–44.4%, P = .15). The total average number of violent events per month, including violence against property, fell from an average of 25.4 to 10.2 (–59.8%, P = .03).

The total patient population didn’t vary significantly over time, Dr. Chen said. “Thus, the decrease in violence was not correlated with a decrease in patient load.”

While “there were concerns that there would just be higher episodes of violence in the ED while psychiatry patients awaited placement,” Dr. Chen said, the numbers actually showed reductions in violence in that setting. The average number of physically violent events per month in the ED fell from 49.6 to 39.4 (–20.6%, P = .03). Verbal threats dropped from 38 to 34.6 (–8.9%, P = .5) and overall violent events dipped from 87.6 to 74 (–15.6%, P = .08).

Why did the interventions seem to work? “Standing doses as well as as-needed medications started for psychiatric patients in the emergency department have been crucial to prevent delay of care,” Dr. Chen said. Enlisting the pharmacy department “helped ensure all patients had appropriate as-needed medications to prevent them from decompensating on the units,” he added, and “involvement of nursing and ancillary staff in high-risk rounds allowed the treatment team to rapidly anticipate and address concerns.”

The study authors also reported that nursing staff felt safer. Scores on a perception-of-safety scale – with 1 most unsafe and 7 most safe – improved from 3.3 to 4.2 (+27%, P < .01).

Dr. Chen said there was a “minimal” increase in cost to implement the intervention, although coordination is necessary. “The emergency department and psychiatry department have to work together to initiate treatment in the ED while awaiting beds,” he said. “The treatment team needs to communicate concerns during rounds. The pharmacist and psychiatrist need to work together to ensure that proper as-needed medications are available.”
 

‘Good clinical practice’

In an interview, psychiatrist Mark J. Russ, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Westchester Behavioral Health and Weill Cornell Medical College, said violent incidents in inpatient psychiatric units are influenced by many factors, such as history of violence, substance use, history of trauma, psychosis/paranoia, and medical problems.

The units themselves can contribute to the risk of violence through power struggles and lack of attention paid to respect and dignity, he said. “Attention to these issues is important in reducing violence,” he noted. “Generalized training for staff in de-escalation techniques and trauma-informed care is imperative. There may be value in developing specialized psychiatric ICUs where staff are meticulously trained in these and other approaches.”

The new study, Dr. Russ said, suggests that “early identification of patients at risk of engaging in violent behavior on the inpatient unit, pharmacologic treatment, and good communication helps reduce violence.” The findings, he added, suggest that “interventions known to constitute good clinical practice are indeed helpful.”

However, he cautioned that “treating all at-risk patients with antipsychotics, regardless of their psychiatric diagnosis, might well be considered chemical restraint, depending on [the] circumstances.”

There was no study funding. The study authors and Dr. Russ have no disclosures.

SAN FRANCISCO – Physically violent events at an inpatient psychiatric unit in Pennsylvania dropped by 59.8% in the months after it implemented a plan to administer antipsychotic medications to patients more quickly – both in the emergency department and in the unit – and improve handoffs between providers and nurses, researchers reported.

“We were able to significantly reduce violence,” said Michael Chen, MD, Lehigh Valley Health Network psychiatry resident and lead author of an abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “Furthermore, the interventions were effective in reducing episodes of violence rather than redirecting it. And the overall feeling of safety on the inpatient psychiatric unit improved.”

Violence is common in psychiatric units, although it’s not clear how often it occurs. “The data has shown that patients with a psychotic disorder such as schizophrenia or a mood disorder with psychotic features such as bipolar disorder tend to account for most of the episodes of violence on the unit,” Dr. Chen said in an interview. “This inevitably results in a higher risk for violence on inpatient psychiatric units as a large portion of patients admitted to inpatient psychiatric units have these diagnoses.”
 

Enlisting the pharmacy department

For the new study, investigators tracked episodes of violence – including verbal attacks – at an Allentown, Penn.–area inpatient psychiatric unit from December 2021 to September 2022. According to Dr. Chen, unit leaders implemented the new plan in May 2022 in the wake of higher levels of violence during the COVID-19 pandemic and the concurrent staff shortages.

Clinic leaders sought to identify potentially aggressive patients in the emergency department and treat them with antipsychotics prior to admission to the psychiatric unit, ensure that the pharmacy provides access to as-needed or standing medications, and develop “standardized huddles to ensure proper handoffs between providers and nurses.”

Medical staff relied on the Dynamic Appraisal of Situational Aggression scale, risk factors, and clinical judgment to determine which patients had the potential to be violent, Dr. Chen said.

As for treatment, first-line antipsychotics are typically given orally, but they can be injected if patients must be treated over their objections, he said. “We would only consider starting standing medications against objections in patients who are involuntarily committed.”

During the 5 months before the intervention was implemented versus the following 5 months, the average monthly number of physically violent events in the psychiatric unit fell from 12.4 to 4.8 (–61.1%, P = .04), and verbal threats dipped from 7.2 to 4 (–44.4%, P = .15). The total average number of violent events per month, including violence against property, fell from an average of 25.4 to 10.2 (–59.8%, P = .03).

The total patient population didn’t vary significantly over time, Dr. Chen said. “Thus, the decrease in violence was not correlated with a decrease in patient load.”

While “there were concerns that there would just be higher episodes of violence in the ED while psychiatry patients awaited placement,” Dr. Chen said, the numbers actually showed reductions in violence in that setting. The average number of physically violent events per month in the ED fell from 49.6 to 39.4 (–20.6%, P = .03). Verbal threats dropped from 38 to 34.6 (–8.9%, P = .5) and overall violent events dipped from 87.6 to 74 (–15.6%, P = .08).

Why did the interventions seem to work? “Standing doses as well as as-needed medications started for psychiatric patients in the emergency department have been crucial to prevent delay of care,” Dr. Chen said. Enlisting the pharmacy department “helped ensure all patients had appropriate as-needed medications to prevent them from decompensating on the units,” he added, and “involvement of nursing and ancillary staff in high-risk rounds allowed the treatment team to rapidly anticipate and address concerns.”

The study authors also reported that nursing staff felt safer. Scores on a perception-of-safety scale – with 1 most unsafe and 7 most safe – improved from 3.3 to 4.2 (+27%, P < .01).

Dr. Chen said there was a “minimal” increase in cost to implement the intervention, although coordination is necessary. “The emergency department and psychiatry department have to work together to initiate treatment in the ED while awaiting beds,” he said. “The treatment team needs to communicate concerns during rounds. The pharmacist and psychiatrist need to work together to ensure that proper as-needed medications are available.”
 

‘Good clinical practice’

In an interview, psychiatrist Mark J. Russ, MD, of NewYork-Presbyterian/Westchester Behavioral Health and Weill Cornell Medical College, said violent incidents in inpatient psychiatric units are influenced by many factors, such as history of violence, substance use, history of trauma, psychosis/paranoia, and medical problems.

The units themselves can contribute to the risk of violence through power struggles and lack of attention paid to respect and dignity, he said. “Attention to these issues is important in reducing violence,” he noted. “Generalized training for staff in de-escalation techniques and trauma-informed care is imperative. There may be value in developing specialized psychiatric ICUs where staff are meticulously trained in these and other approaches.”

The new study, Dr. Russ said, suggests that “early identification of patients at risk of engaging in violent behavior on the inpatient unit, pharmacologic treatment, and good communication helps reduce violence.” The findings, he added, suggest that “interventions known to constitute good clinical practice are indeed helpful.”

However, he cautioned that “treating all at-risk patients with antipsychotics, regardless of their psychiatric diagnosis, might well be considered chemical restraint, depending on [the] circumstances.”

There was no study funding. The study authors and Dr. Russ have no disclosures.

A large proportion of U.S. adults who are prescribed schedule II stimulants are simultaneously receiving other CNS-active agents including benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants – a potentially dangerous practice.

Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.

Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.

The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in BMJ Open.
 

‘Dangerous’ substances

Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.

Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.

Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.

For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.

The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.

The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.

The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.

CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
 

Prescribing cascade

Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.

Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.

“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.

He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”

These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”

Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.

“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.

They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”

Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.

Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.

“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
 

Complex prescribing regimens

Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”

Columbia University

Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”

However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”

These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.

The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large proportion of U.S. adults who are prescribed schedule II stimulants are simultaneously receiving other CNS-active agents including benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants – a potentially dangerous practice.

Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.

Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.

The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in BMJ Open.
 

‘Dangerous’ substances

Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.

Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.

Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.

For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.

The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.

The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.

The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.

CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
 

Prescribing cascade

Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.

Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.

“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.

He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”

These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”

Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.

“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.

They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”

Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.

Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.

“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
 

Complex prescribing regimens

Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”

Columbia University

Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”

However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”

These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.

The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large proportion of U.S. adults who are prescribed schedule II stimulants are simultaneously receiving other CNS-active agents including benzodiazepines, opioids, and antidepressants – a potentially dangerous practice.

Investigators analyzed prescription drug claims for over 9.1 million U.S. adults over a 1-year period and found that 276,223 (3%) had used a schedule II stimulant, such as methylphenidate and amphetamines, during that time. Of these 276,223 patients, 45% combined these agents with one or more additional CNS-active drugs and almost 25% were simultaneously using two or more additional CNS-active drugs.

Close to half of the stimulant users were taking an antidepressant, while close to one-third filled prescriptions for anxiolytic/sedative/hypnotic meditations, and one-fifth received opioid prescriptions.

The widespread, often off-label use of these stimulants in combination therapy with antidepressants, anxiolytics, opioids, and other psychoactive drugs, “reveals new patterns of utilization beyond the approved use of stimulants as monotherapy for ADHD, but because there are so few studies of these kinds of combination therapy, both the advantages and additional risks [of this type of prescribing] remain unknown,” study investigator Thomas J. Moore, AB, faculty associate in epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, told this news organization.

The study was published online in BMJ Open.
 

‘Dangerous’ substances

Amphetamines and methylphenidate are CNS stimulants that have been in use for almost a century. Like opioids and barbiturates, they’re considered “dangerous” and classified as schedule II Controlled Substances because of their high potential for abuse.

Over many years, these stimulants have been used for multiple purposes, including nasal congestion, narcolepsy, appetite suppression, binge eating, depression, senile behavior, lethargy, and ADHD, the researchers note.

Observational studies suggest medical use of these agents has been increasing in the United States. The investigators conducted previous research that revealed a 79% increase from 2013 to 2018 in the number of adults who self-report their use. The current study, said Mr. Moore, explores how these stimulants are being used.

For the study, data was extracted from the MarketScan 2019 and 2020 Commercial Claims and Encounters Databases, focusing on 9.1 million adults aged 19-64 years who were continuously enrolled in an included commercial benefit plan from Oct. 1, 2019 to Dec. 31, 2020.

The primary outcome consisted of an outpatient prescription claim, service date, and days’ supply for the CNS-active drugs.

The researchers defined “combination-2” therapy as 60 or more days of combination treatment with a schedule II stimulant and at least one additional CNS-active drug. “Combination-3” therapy was defined as the addition of at least two additional CNS-active drugs.

The researchers used service date and days’ supply to examine the number of stimulant and other CNS-active drugs for each of the days of 2020.

CNS-active drug classes included antidepressants, anxiolytics/sedatives/hypnotics, antipsychotics, opioids, anticonvulsants, and other CNS-active drugs.
 

Prescribing cascade

Of the total number of adults enrolled, 3% (n = 276,223) were taking schedule II stimulants during 2020, with a median of 8 (interquartile range, 4-11) prescriptions. These drugs provided 227 (IQR, 110-322) treatment days of exposure.

Among those taking stimulants 45.5% combined the use of at least one additional CNS-active drug for a median of 213 (IQR, 126-301) treatment days; and 24.3% used at least two additional CNS-active drugs for a median of 182 (IQR, 108-276) days.

“Clinicians should beware of the prescribing cascade. Sometimes it begins with an antidepressant that causes too much sedation, so a stimulant gets added, which leads to insomnia, so alprazolam gets added to the mix,” Mr. Moore said.

He cautioned that this “leaves a patient with multiple drugs, all with discontinuation effects of different kinds and clashing effects.”

These new findings, the investigators note, “add new public health concerns to those raised by our previous study. ... this more-detailed profile reveals several new patterns.”

Most patients become “long-term users” once treatment has started, with 75% continuing for a 1-year period.

“This underscores the possible risks of nonmedical use and dependence that have warranted the classification of these drugs as having high potential for psychological or physical dependence and their prominent appearance in toxicology drug rankings of fatal overdose cases,” they write.

They note that the data “do not indicate which intervention may have come first – a stimulant added to compensate for excess sedation from the benzodiazepine, or the alprazolam added to calm excessive CNS stimulation and/or insomnia from the stimulants or other drugs.”

Several limitations cited by the authors include the fact that, although the population encompassed 9.1 million people, it “may not represent all commercially insured adults,” and it doesn’t include people who aren’t covered by commercial insurance.

Moreover, the MarketScan dataset included up to four diagnosis codes for each outpatient and emergency department encounter; therefore, it was not possible to directly link the diagnoses to specific prescription drug claims, and thus the diagnoses were not evaluated.

“Since many providers will not accept a drug claim for a schedule II stimulant without an on-label diagnosis of ADHD,” the authors suspect that “large numbers of this diagnosis were present.”
 

Complex prescribing regimens

Mark Olfson, MD, MPH, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law and professor of epidemiology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, said the report “highlights the pharmacological complexity of adults who are treated with stimulants.”

Columbia University

Dr. Olfson, who is a research psychiatrist at the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, and was not involved with the study, observed there is “evidence to support stimulants as an adjunctive therapy for treatment-resistant unipolar depression in older adults.”

However, he added, “this indication is unlikely to fully explain the high proportion of nonelderly, stimulant-treated adults who also receive antidepressants.”

These new findings “call for research to increase our understanding of the clinical contexts that motivate these complex prescribing regimens as well as their effectiveness and safety,” said Dr. Olfson.

The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Mr. Moore declares no relevant financial relationships. Coauthor G. Caleb Alexander, MD, is past chair and a current member of the Food and Drug Administration’s Peripheral and Central Nervous System Advisory Committee; is a cofounding principal and equity holder in Monument Analytics, a health care consultancy whose clients include the life sciences industry as well as plaintiffs in opioid litigation, for whom he has served as a paid expert witness; and is a past member of OptumRx’s National P&T Committee. Dr. Olfson declares no relevant financial relationships.

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

A brief scalable suicide risk assessment tool accurately predicts suicide risk in patients with serious mental illness (SMI), a new population-based study shows.

The 17-question Oxford Mental Illness and Suicide Tool (OxMIS) assessment is designed to predict 12-month suicide risk in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder based on risk factors such as familial traits, antisocial traits, and information about self-harm.

“We have demonstrated the clinical utility of OxMIS in two separate studies and countries. As with any clinical risk prediction tool, it will not improve outcomes unless coupled with effective interventions,” lead investigator Amir Sariaslan, PhD, a senior research fellow in psychiatric epidemiology at the University of Oxford, England, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

Twice validated

Dr. Sariaslan and his team originally developed and validated the OxMIS in a cohort of 75,000 people with SMI in Sweden. Recognizing the lack of externally validated prognostic models in the mental health field, the team wanted to validate the instrument in a new, population-based sample in Finland.

The investigators accessed information about patient diagnosis and treatment from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care, which contains de-identified information for all individuals between ages 15 and 65 years diagnosed with an SMI between Jan. 1, 1996, and Dec. 31, 2017.

They included 137,000 patients with somatic symptom disorder or bipolar disorder for a total of more than 5 million episodes of inpatient or outpatient treatment. Investigators linked the cohort to the Causes of Death Register to identify those who had died by suicide within 12 months of an index treatment episode, which investigators randomly selected for each person.

The investigators found that 1,475 individuals in the sample died by suicide within 1 year of their index episode (1.1%).

Each patient was assigned a clinical suicide risk score based on their clinical information, familial traits, prescription information, and comorbid conditions. Using OxMIS, the investigators found that the instrument accurately predicted suicide with an area under the curve of 0.70.

In other words, in 70% of the instances where the investigators randomly selected two people from the sample, one of whom died by suicide and the other of whom did not, the individual who died by suicide had a higher OxMIS risk score.

The investigators note the model overestimated the risk for patients who were at extremely high risk for suicide (those with a predicted suicide risk of > 5%). “In our complementary sensitivity analysis, we observed improved calibration in these patients when we assigned them a suicide risk prediction of no more than 5%,” they write.

Dr. Sariaslan said that the findings highlight the importance of safety planning interventions. “It is also essential to remember that OxMIS is not intended to replace clinical decision-making, but rather to support it,” he said.

As to whether the tool could be used in other populations, such as in the United States, Dr. Sariaslan said, “there is no good evidence that the contribution of risk factors to suicide in this population is different in the U.S. than in northern Europe, so there is no a priori reason to have to do multiple external validations before it can be used for research or clinical purposes.”
 

One size does not fit all

Commenting on the study, Ronald Kessler, PhD, McNeil Family Professor, department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that he’d be “surprised” if OxMIS was adopted in the United States because there is already an existing tool that is “slightly more accurate,” which he helped develop.

Harvard Medical School

“In addition, when we start thinking about uses for such scales, it becomes clear that different scales should be used for different segments of the population, depending on intervention options,” Dr. Kessler said.

“So, for example, a different scale would probably be optimal in deciding how to manage psychiatric inpatients in the transition back to the community after hospital discharge than [it would be], say, in deciding how to respond to suicidality among patients presenting at an emergency department. No one scale will fit for all the scenarios in which prediction is desired,” he added.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Kessler receives funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, Department of Defense, and Veterans Administration to develop suicide prediction models. Dr. Sariaslan has no disclosures to report.

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

A brief scalable suicide risk assessment tool accurately predicts suicide risk in patients with serious mental illness (SMI), a new population-based study shows.

The 17-question Oxford Mental Illness and Suicide Tool (OxMIS) assessment is designed to predict 12-month suicide risk in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder based on risk factors such as familial traits, antisocial traits, and information about self-harm.

“We have demonstrated the clinical utility of OxMIS in two separate studies and countries. As with any clinical risk prediction tool, it will not improve outcomes unless coupled with effective interventions,” lead investigator Amir Sariaslan, PhD, a senior research fellow in psychiatric epidemiology at the University of Oxford, England, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

Twice validated

Dr. Sariaslan and his team originally developed and validated the OxMIS in a cohort of 75,000 people with SMI in Sweden. Recognizing the lack of externally validated prognostic models in the mental health field, the team wanted to validate the instrument in a new, population-based sample in Finland.

The investigators accessed information about patient diagnosis and treatment from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care, which contains de-identified information for all individuals between ages 15 and 65 years diagnosed with an SMI between Jan. 1, 1996, and Dec. 31, 2017.

They included 137,000 patients with somatic symptom disorder or bipolar disorder for a total of more than 5 million episodes of inpatient or outpatient treatment. Investigators linked the cohort to the Causes of Death Register to identify those who had died by suicide within 12 months of an index treatment episode, which investigators randomly selected for each person.

The investigators found that 1,475 individuals in the sample died by suicide within 1 year of their index episode (1.1%).

Each patient was assigned a clinical suicide risk score based on their clinical information, familial traits, prescription information, and comorbid conditions. Using OxMIS, the investigators found that the instrument accurately predicted suicide with an area under the curve of 0.70.

In other words, in 70% of the instances where the investigators randomly selected two people from the sample, one of whom died by suicide and the other of whom did not, the individual who died by suicide had a higher OxMIS risk score.

The investigators note the model overestimated the risk for patients who were at extremely high risk for suicide (those with a predicted suicide risk of > 5%). “In our complementary sensitivity analysis, we observed improved calibration in these patients when we assigned them a suicide risk prediction of no more than 5%,” they write.

Dr. Sariaslan said that the findings highlight the importance of safety planning interventions. “It is also essential to remember that OxMIS is not intended to replace clinical decision-making, but rather to support it,” he said.

As to whether the tool could be used in other populations, such as in the United States, Dr. Sariaslan said, “there is no good evidence that the contribution of risk factors to suicide in this population is different in the U.S. than in northern Europe, so there is no a priori reason to have to do multiple external validations before it can be used for research or clinical purposes.”
 

One size does not fit all

Commenting on the study, Ronald Kessler, PhD, McNeil Family Professor, department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that he’d be “surprised” if OxMIS was adopted in the United States because there is already an existing tool that is “slightly more accurate,” which he helped develop.

Harvard Medical School

“In addition, when we start thinking about uses for such scales, it becomes clear that different scales should be used for different segments of the population, depending on intervention options,” Dr. Kessler said.

“So, for example, a different scale would probably be optimal in deciding how to manage psychiatric inpatients in the transition back to the community after hospital discharge than [it would be], say, in deciding how to respond to suicidality among patients presenting at an emergency department. No one scale will fit for all the scenarios in which prediction is desired,” he added.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Kessler receives funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, Department of Defense, and Veterans Administration to develop suicide prediction models. Dr. Sariaslan has no disclosures to report.

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

A brief scalable suicide risk assessment tool accurately predicts suicide risk in patients with serious mental illness (SMI), a new population-based study shows.

The 17-question Oxford Mental Illness and Suicide Tool (OxMIS) assessment is designed to predict 12-month suicide risk in people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and bipolar disorder based on risk factors such as familial traits, antisocial traits, and information about self-harm.

“We have demonstrated the clinical utility of OxMIS in two separate studies and countries. As with any clinical risk prediction tool, it will not improve outcomes unless coupled with effective interventions,” lead investigator Amir Sariaslan, PhD, a senior research fellow in psychiatric epidemiology at the University of Oxford, England, told this news organization.

The findings were published online in Translational Psychiatry.
 

Twice validated

Dr. Sariaslan and his team originally developed and validated the OxMIS in a cohort of 75,000 people with SMI in Sweden. Recognizing the lack of externally validated prognostic models in the mental health field, the team wanted to validate the instrument in a new, population-based sample in Finland.

The investigators accessed information about patient diagnosis and treatment from the Finnish Care Register for Health Care, which contains de-identified information for all individuals between ages 15 and 65 years diagnosed with an SMI between Jan. 1, 1996, and Dec. 31, 2017.

They included 137,000 patients with somatic symptom disorder or bipolar disorder for a total of more than 5 million episodes of inpatient or outpatient treatment. Investigators linked the cohort to the Causes of Death Register to identify those who had died by suicide within 12 months of an index treatment episode, which investigators randomly selected for each person.

The investigators found that 1,475 individuals in the sample died by suicide within 1 year of their index episode (1.1%).

Each patient was assigned a clinical suicide risk score based on their clinical information, familial traits, prescription information, and comorbid conditions. Using OxMIS, the investigators found that the instrument accurately predicted suicide with an area under the curve of 0.70.

In other words, in 70% of the instances where the investigators randomly selected two people from the sample, one of whom died by suicide and the other of whom did not, the individual who died by suicide had a higher OxMIS risk score.

The investigators note the model overestimated the risk for patients who were at extremely high risk for suicide (those with a predicted suicide risk of > 5%). “In our complementary sensitivity analysis, we observed improved calibration in these patients when we assigned them a suicide risk prediction of no more than 5%,” they write.

Dr. Sariaslan said that the findings highlight the importance of safety planning interventions. “It is also essential to remember that OxMIS is not intended to replace clinical decision-making, but rather to support it,” he said.

As to whether the tool could be used in other populations, such as in the United States, Dr. Sariaslan said, “there is no good evidence that the contribution of risk factors to suicide in this population is different in the U.S. than in northern Europe, so there is no a priori reason to have to do multiple external validations before it can be used for research or clinical purposes.”
 

One size does not fit all

Commenting on the study, Ronald Kessler, PhD, McNeil Family Professor, department of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said that he’d be “surprised” if OxMIS was adopted in the United States because there is already an existing tool that is “slightly more accurate,” which he helped develop.

Harvard Medical School

“In addition, when we start thinking about uses for such scales, it becomes clear that different scales should be used for different segments of the population, depending on intervention options,” Dr. Kessler said.

“So, for example, a different scale would probably be optimal in deciding how to manage psychiatric inpatients in the transition back to the community after hospital discharge than [it would be], say, in deciding how to respond to suicidality among patients presenting at an emergency department. No one scale will fit for all the scenarios in which prediction is desired,” he added.

The study was funded by the Academy of Finland. Dr. Kessler receives funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, Department of Defense, and Veterans Administration to develop suicide prediction models. Dr. Sariaslan has no disclosures to report.

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