Bipolar Disorder

VIENNA – Individuals born to younger or older parents are at increased risk of developing bipolar disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a meta-analysis of more than 210,000 patients with bipolar disorder and over 13 million healthy individuals showed that children of mothers younger than 20 years had a 23% increased risk for bipolar disorder vs. those whose parents were aged 25-29 years. For participants whose mothers were aged 35-39 years, there was a 10% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which rose to 20% if the mother was aged 40 or older.

Having a father younger than 20 years conferred a 29% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which was the same increase in risk found in individuals whose fathers were aged 45 years or older.

These findings, which are an update of data published in the journal European Pharmacology, were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Fourteen studies included

Previous studies have suggested that parental age at birth is a risk factor for several psychiatric disorders in offspring, including bipolar disorder, and that advanced parental age, specifically, is associated with earlier onset schizophrenia.

To investigate further, the current researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsychINFO databases for relevant studies published to Dec. 1, 2021.

From 712 studies initially identified, 16 met all the inclusion criteria and 14 were included in the quantitative analysis.

Five studies reported only paternal age and risk for bipolar disorder in their offspring, one included just maternal age, and eight reported both maternal and paternal age in relation to the risk for offspring bipolar disorder.

Individuals with a history of any psychiatric disorders were excluded, leaving a total of 13.4 million individuals without bipolar disorder and 217,089 who had received a diagnosis for the disorder.

The investigators also corrected for both socioeconomic status and, when assessing the impact of maternal or paternal age at birth, corrected for the age of the other parent. However, they were unable to correct for the number of children in a family.

Results after stratifying maternal and paternal age showed that, compared with those born to parents aged 25-29 years, there was an increased risk for bipolar disorder in the offspring of both fathers and mothers younger than 20 years of age, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.48) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.14-1.33), respectively.

Compared with those aged 25-29 years, there was also an increased risk for bipolar disorder in children born to mothers aged 35-39 years (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19) and aged 40 or older (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40).

Among fathers, there was increased risk for offspring bipolar disorder in those aged 45 or older vs. those aged 25-29 years (adjusted OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46).
 

Several hypotheses

There are several hypotheses that could explain the results, lead study author Giovanna Fico, MD, bipolar and depressive disorders unit, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, told this news organization.

In older age, it may be “more related to genetic or epigenetic modification, especially in fathers,” Dr. Fico said. “Some studies have shown that there are de novo mutations in the germ lines, which increase the risk of several diseases, including schizophrenia.”

In younger individuals, there could be a “mixed effect between sociocultural factors, such as substance abuse, low educational status,” and other issues, Dr. Fico noted.

Moreover, as bipolar disorder onset can be as late as 30 years of age, the younger group could include “undiagnosed patients with bipolar disorder, which would increase the risk” of the disease in their offspring, she added.

Dr. Fico noted the investigators are now planning on studying the impact of environmental factors such as pollution, climate change, and urbanization on risk for bipolar disorder, with the aim of being better able to inform parents or to develop prevention strategies.

Psychoeducation is “very common for infertility, birth defects, and Down syndrome, but it’s not so common for psychiatric disorders because we need more data. But I think it’s important that parents know they have an increased risk,” she said.

Nevertheless, “We must stress that this risk is moderate, and it must be kept in perspective,” Dr. Fico said in a news release.
 

‘Exciting’ questions raised

The study “raises several exciting research questions, including the possibility of early prevention and intervention,” Maj Vinberg, MD, PhD, clinical professor, department of clinical medicine, University of Copenhagen, said in the release.

She said she agrees there are likely to be different factors at play at different ages, with the risk for bipolar disorder associated with younger-age parenthood more likely to be related to socioeconomic status.

For older parents, “there has been a lot of speculation around the father’s age especially, which everybody thought didn’t matter,” said Dr. Vinberg, who was not involved with the research.

“But you might have some epigenetic changes as you grow older that might transfer into the next generation,” given that there is 20 years of additional exposure to potential epigenetic changes between a man aged 25 years and one aged 45 years, she noted.

Dr. Vinberg also highlighted that there could be cases of undiagnosed bipolar disorder among the younger parents, and she noted that “men with bipolar disorder tend to have more children,” particularly during manic phases.

She explained that if someone were to get divorced at 35 years of age, then have a new manic episode at 45 “and have a new wife and children, I don’t know whether it’s possible to correct for that.”

The research is supported by a fellowship from “la Caixa” Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vinberg reported having relationships with Lundbeck and Janssen.

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

VIENNA – Individuals born to younger or older parents are at increased risk of developing bipolar disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a meta-analysis of more than 210,000 patients with bipolar disorder and over 13 million healthy individuals showed that children of mothers younger than 20 years had a 23% increased risk for bipolar disorder vs. those whose parents were aged 25-29 years. For participants whose mothers were aged 35-39 years, there was a 10% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which rose to 20% if the mother was aged 40 or older.

Having a father younger than 20 years conferred a 29% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which was the same increase in risk found in individuals whose fathers were aged 45 years or older.

These findings, which are an update of data published in the journal European Pharmacology, were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Fourteen studies included

Previous studies have suggested that parental age at birth is a risk factor for several psychiatric disorders in offspring, including bipolar disorder, and that advanced parental age, specifically, is associated with earlier onset schizophrenia.

To investigate further, the current researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsychINFO databases for relevant studies published to Dec. 1, 2021.

From 712 studies initially identified, 16 met all the inclusion criteria and 14 were included in the quantitative analysis.

Five studies reported only paternal age and risk for bipolar disorder in their offspring, one included just maternal age, and eight reported both maternal and paternal age in relation to the risk for offspring bipolar disorder.

Individuals with a history of any psychiatric disorders were excluded, leaving a total of 13.4 million individuals without bipolar disorder and 217,089 who had received a diagnosis for the disorder.

The investigators also corrected for both socioeconomic status and, when assessing the impact of maternal or paternal age at birth, corrected for the age of the other parent. However, they were unable to correct for the number of children in a family.

Results after stratifying maternal and paternal age showed that, compared with those born to parents aged 25-29 years, there was an increased risk for bipolar disorder in the offspring of both fathers and mothers younger than 20 years of age, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.48) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.14-1.33), respectively.

Compared with those aged 25-29 years, there was also an increased risk for bipolar disorder in children born to mothers aged 35-39 years (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19) and aged 40 or older (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40).

Among fathers, there was increased risk for offspring bipolar disorder in those aged 45 or older vs. those aged 25-29 years (adjusted OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46).
 

Several hypotheses

There are several hypotheses that could explain the results, lead study author Giovanna Fico, MD, bipolar and depressive disorders unit, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, told this news organization.

In older age, it may be “more related to genetic or epigenetic modification, especially in fathers,” Dr. Fico said. “Some studies have shown that there are de novo mutations in the germ lines, which increase the risk of several diseases, including schizophrenia.”

In younger individuals, there could be a “mixed effect between sociocultural factors, such as substance abuse, low educational status,” and other issues, Dr. Fico noted.

Moreover, as bipolar disorder onset can be as late as 30 years of age, the younger group could include “undiagnosed patients with bipolar disorder, which would increase the risk” of the disease in their offspring, she added.

Dr. Fico noted the investigators are now planning on studying the impact of environmental factors such as pollution, climate change, and urbanization on risk for bipolar disorder, with the aim of being better able to inform parents or to develop prevention strategies.

Psychoeducation is “very common for infertility, birth defects, and Down syndrome, but it’s not so common for psychiatric disorders because we need more data. But I think it’s important that parents know they have an increased risk,” she said.

Nevertheless, “We must stress that this risk is moderate, and it must be kept in perspective,” Dr. Fico said in a news release.
 

‘Exciting’ questions raised

The study “raises several exciting research questions, including the possibility of early prevention and intervention,” Maj Vinberg, MD, PhD, clinical professor, department of clinical medicine, University of Copenhagen, said in the release.

She said she agrees there are likely to be different factors at play at different ages, with the risk for bipolar disorder associated with younger-age parenthood more likely to be related to socioeconomic status.

For older parents, “there has been a lot of speculation around the father’s age especially, which everybody thought didn’t matter,” said Dr. Vinberg, who was not involved with the research.

“But you might have some epigenetic changes as you grow older that might transfer into the next generation,” given that there is 20 years of additional exposure to potential epigenetic changes between a man aged 25 years and one aged 45 years, she noted.

Dr. Vinberg also highlighted that there could be cases of undiagnosed bipolar disorder among the younger parents, and she noted that “men with bipolar disorder tend to have more children,” particularly during manic phases.

She explained that if someone were to get divorced at 35 years of age, then have a new manic episode at 45 “and have a new wife and children, I don’t know whether it’s possible to correct for that.”

The research is supported by a fellowship from “la Caixa” Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vinberg reported having relationships with Lundbeck and Janssen.

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

VIENNA – Individuals born to younger or older parents are at increased risk of developing bipolar disorder, new research suggests.

Results from a meta-analysis of more than 210,000 patients with bipolar disorder and over 13 million healthy individuals showed that children of mothers younger than 20 years had a 23% increased risk for bipolar disorder vs. those whose parents were aged 25-29 years. For participants whose mothers were aged 35-39 years, there was a 10% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which rose to 20% if the mother was aged 40 or older.

Having a father younger than 20 years conferred a 29% increased risk for bipolar disorder, which was the same increase in risk found in individuals whose fathers were aged 45 years or older.

These findings, which are an update of data published in the journal European Pharmacology, were presented at the 35th European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress.
 

Fourteen studies included

Previous studies have suggested that parental age at birth is a risk factor for several psychiatric disorders in offspring, including bipolar disorder, and that advanced parental age, specifically, is associated with earlier onset schizophrenia.

To investigate further, the current researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsychINFO databases for relevant studies published to Dec. 1, 2021.

From 712 studies initially identified, 16 met all the inclusion criteria and 14 were included in the quantitative analysis.

Five studies reported only paternal age and risk for bipolar disorder in their offspring, one included just maternal age, and eight reported both maternal and paternal age in relation to the risk for offspring bipolar disorder.

Individuals with a history of any psychiatric disorders were excluded, leaving a total of 13.4 million individuals without bipolar disorder and 217,089 who had received a diagnosis for the disorder.

The investigators also corrected for both socioeconomic status and, when assessing the impact of maternal or paternal age at birth, corrected for the age of the other parent. However, they were unable to correct for the number of children in a family.

Results after stratifying maternal and paternal age showed that, compared with those born to parents aged 25-29 years, there was an increased risk for bipolar disorder in the offspring of both fathers and mothers younger than 20 years of age, with adjusted odds ratios of 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.48) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.14-1.33), respectively.

Compared with those aged 25-29 years, there was also an increased risk for bipolar disorder in children born to mothers aged 35-39 years (adjusted OR, 1.1; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19) and aged 40 or older (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.02-1.40).

Among fathers, there was increased risk for offspring bipolar disorder in those aged 45 or older vs. those aged 25-29 years (adjusted OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.15-1.46).
 

Several hypotheses

There are several hypotheses that could explain the results, lead study author Giovanna Fico, MD, bipolar and depressive disorders unit, Hospital Clínic Barcelona, told this news organization.

In older age, it may be “more related to genetic or epigenetic modification, especially in fathers,” Dr. Fico said. “Some studies have shown that there are de novo mutations in the germ lines, which increase the risk of several diseases, including schizophrenia.”

In younger individuals, there could be a “mixed effect between sociocultural factors, such as substance abuse, low educational status,” and other issues, Dr. Fico noted.

Moreover, as bipolar disorder onset can be as late as 30 years of age, the younger group could include “undiagnosed patients with bipolar disorder, which would increase the risk” of the disease in their offspring, she added.

Dr. Fico noted the investigators are now planning on studying the impact of environmental factors such as pollution, climate change, and urbanization on risk for bipolar disorder, with the aim of being better able to inform parents or to develop prevention strategies.

Psychoeducation is “very common for infertility, birth defects, and Down syndrome, but it’s not so common for psychiatric disorders because we need more data. But I think it’s important that parents know they have an increased risk,” she said.

Nevertheless, “We must stress that this risk is moderate, and it must be kept in perspective,” Dr. Fico said in a news release.
 

‘Exciting’ questions raised

The study “raises several exciting research questions, including the possibility of early prevention and intervention,” Maj Vinberg, MD, PhD, clinical professor, department of clinical medicine, University of Copenhagen, said in the release.

She said she agrees there are likely to be different factors at play at different ages, with the risk for bipolar disorder associated with younger-age parenthood more likely to be related to socioeconomic status.

For older parents, “there has been a lot of speculation around the father’s age especially, which everybody thought didn’t matter,” said Dr. Vinberg, who was not involved with the research.

“But you might have some epigenetic changes as you grow older that might transfer into the next generation,” given that there is 20 years of additional exposure to potential epigenetic changes between a man aged 25 years and one aged 45 years, she noted.

Dr. Vinberg also highlighted that there could be cases of undiagnosed bipolar disorder among the younger parents, and she noted that “men with bipolar disorder tend to have more children,” particularly during manic phases.

She explained that if someone were to get divorced at 35 years of age, then have a new manic episode at 45 “and have a new wife and children, I don’t know whether it’s possible to correct for that.”

The research is supported by a fellowship from “la Caixa” Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Vinberg reported having relationships with Lundbeck and Janssen.

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

There is a concerning lack of follow-up care for young people who experience a mental health crisis, new research suggests.

Results from a large database study showed less than half of youth and young adults hospitalized for a psychiatric event received follow-up care within 7 days. The follow-up rate was less than 30% for those who had visited an ED.

The strongest predictor of follow-up was having received both primary and mental health care during the 6 months prior to using the acute service.

“For people discharging folks after a psychiatric crisis, whether it be in a hospital or emergency room setting, connecting them with their outpatient provider to ensure the transfer of care and continuity of care is vitally important to reduce risks for this population,” coinvestigator Brian Skehan, MD, PhD, assistant professor and psychiatrist, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said during a press briefing.

If these discharged patients do not have a provider, “make sure they get one,” Lisa Dixon, MD, editor-in-chief of Psychiatric Services, added during the same briefing. “That’s the gift of life potentially for these young people.”

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Alarming trends

The alarming suicide trends among youths were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Skehan noted.

He cited a 2021 study that showed more than 44% of high school students experienced persistent sadness or hopelessness over the previous year, 1 in 5 seriously considered suicide, and almost 1 in 10 actually attempted suicide.

“When we look at the number of young adults and adolescents struggling with behavioral health issues, the data trend is disturbing nationwide,” Dr. Skehan said.

The current study included participants aged 12-27 years who had private insurance. Many youth in this age category are experiencing significant changes, such as moving from high school to college and from pediatric providers to adult providers – and some “get lost in this transition,” said Dr. Skehan.

He noted many inpatient psychiatric units are not geared to young adults. “They may miss out on some aspects of inpatient care because it’s not geared to their developmental stage,” he said.

Assessing U.S. patient data in the IBM MarketScan commercial database (2013-2018), the researchers created two study samples: 95,153 inpatients and 108,576 patients who used the ED. All had an acute event stemming from a mental health condition.

The investigators explored the role of “established” outpatient care, defined as having had at least one visit with a provider of primary or mental health care in the 6 months prior to the acute psychiatric event.

Covariates included age at time of service (aged 12-17 years or 18-27 years), gender, health care plan type, psychiatric diagnosis, whether the acute event was self-harm or suicide related, and medical complexity.
 

Low follow-up rates

In the inpatient group, the average age was 18.9 years, the most common length of hospital stay was 4-6 days, and 1.5% left against medical advice. The most common primary diagnosis was major depression (53.7%), followed by bipolar disorder (22.3%). The least common disorders were PTSD, comorbid eating disorders, and disruptive disorders.

About one-third of participants had used both primary and mental health care during the 6 months before hospitalization, whereas 22.8% had no established outpatient care. Established care was most common among those with comorbid eating disorders and least common among those with psychotic disorders.

Results showed 42.7% of the hospitalized patients received follow up within 7 days and 67.4% received follow up within 30 days.

The strongest predictor of mental health follow-up care was established outpatient care. Compared with those who had no such care, those who had received both primary care and mental health care before the acute event had the highest odds of receiving follow-up (within 7 days, adjusted odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.68-2.94).

Older age and leaving against medical advice were associated with decreased likelihood of follow-up. Female sex, hospitalizations related to self-harm or suicidality, and longer length of stay were associated with increased likelihood of mental health follow-up care.

Compared with those hospitalized for major depression, those hospitalized for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, disruptive disorders, or comorbid substance use disorder were less likely to receive mental health follow-up. For example, only 23.7% of youth with comorbid substance use discharged from the hospital had follow-up within 7 days.

Similar patterns were observed for 30-day follow-up care.
 

‘Accessible and appealing’ options needed

In the ED-visit group, the average age was 19.5 years (58% female). Most (70.4%) had no chronic health conditions other than a psychiatric disorder. The primary diagnoses were anxiety disorders or phobias (44.1%) and major depression (23%).

One in four visits included a code for self-harm, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempt. And almost one third lacked established outpatient care before the ED visit.

Results showed 28.6% of the ED group received mental health care follow-up within 7 days and 46.4% received it within 30 days.

Again, the strongest predictor of mental health follow-up was prior outpatient care. For example, compared with participants with no established outpatient care, those with both primary care and mental health care were the most likely to receive follow-up within 7 days (aOR, 4.06; 95% CI, 3.72-4.42).

These numbers “are far from the goal of making sure everybody is getting follow-up care within 7 days of an acute psychiatric event,” Dr. Skehan said.

He stressed the need for “accessible and appealing options for youth.” These could include telehealth services, improved communication among health care providers in the ED, and reducing barriers to access follow-up care.

“This probably highlights the need to have more case management and referral services, and maybe make sure patients have a follow-up appointment before they leave the emergency room,” said Dr. Skehan. “This doesn’t necessarily guarantee they’ll get there but hopefully it makes it more likely they will have that access should they need it.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a concerning lack of follow-up care for young people who experience a mental health crisis, new research suggests.

Results from a large database study showed less than half of youth and young adults hospitalized for a psychiatric event received follow-up care within 7 days. The follow-up rate was less than 30% for those who had visited an ED.

The strongest predictor of follow-up was having received both primary and mental health care during the 6 months prior to using the acute service.

“For people discharging folks after a psychiatric crisis, whether it be in a hospital or emergency room setting, connecting them with their outpatient provider to ensure the transfer of care and continuity of care is vitally important to reduce risks for this population,” coinvestigator Brian Skehan, MD, PhD, assistant professor and psychiatrist, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said during a press briefing.

If these discharged patients do not have a provider, “make sure they get one,” Lisa Dixon, MD, editor-in-chief of Psychiatric Services, added during the same briefing. “That’s the gift of life potentially for these young people.”

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Alarming trends

The alarming suicide trends among youths were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Skehan noted.

He cited a 2021 study that showed more than 44% of high school students experienced persistent sadness or hopelessness over the previous year, 1 in 5 seriously considered suicide, and almost 1 in 10 actually attempted suicide.

“When we look at the number of young adults and adolescents struggling with behavioral health issues, the data trend is disturbing nationwide,” Dr. Skehan said.

The current study included participants aged 12-27 years who had private insurance. Many youth in this age category are experiencing significant changes, such as moving from high school to college and from pediatric providers to adult providers – and some “get lost in this transition,” said Dr. Skehan.

He noted many inpatient psychiatric units are not geared to young adults. “They may miss out on some aspects of inpatient care because it’s not geared to their developmental stage,” he said.

Assessing U.S. patient data in the IBM MarketScan commercial database (2013-2018), the researchers created two study samples: 95,153 inpatients and 108,576 patients who used the ED. All had an acute event stemming from a mental health condition.

The investigators explored the role of “established” outpatient care, defined as having had at least one visit with a provider of primary or mental health care in the 6 months prior to the acute psychiatric event.

Covariates included age at time of service (aged 12-17 years or 18-27 years), gender, health care plan type, psychiatric diagnosis, whether the acute event was self-harm or suicide related, and medical complexity.
 

Low follow-up rates

In the inpatient group, the average age was 18.9 years, the most common length of hospital stay was 4-6 days, and 1.5% left against medical advice. The most common primary diagnosis was major depression (53.7%), followed by bipolar disorder (22.3%). The least common disorders were PTSD, comorbid eating disorders, and disruptive disorders.

About one-third of participants had used both primary and mental health care during the 6 months before hospitalization, whereas 22.8% had no established outpatient care. Established care was most common among those with comorbid eating disorders and least common among those with psychotic disorders.

Results showed 42.7% of the hospitalized patients received follow up within 7 days and 67.4% received follow up within 30 days.

The strongest predictor of mental health follow-up care was established outpatient care. Compared with those who had no such care, those who had received both primary care and mental health care before the acute event had the highest odds of receiving follow-up (within 7 days, adjusted odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.68-2.94).

Older age and leaving against medical advice were associated with decreased likelihood of follow-up. Female sex, hospitalizations related to self-harm or suicidality, and longer length of stay were associated with increased likelihood of mental health follow-up care.

Compared with those hospitalized for major depression, those hospitalized for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, disruptive disorders, or comorbid substance use disorder were less likely to receive mental health follow-up. For example, only 23.7% of youth with comorbid substance use discharged from the hospital had follow-up within 7 days.

Similar patterns were observed for 30-day follow-up care.
 

‘Accessible and appealing’ options needed

In the ED-visit group, the average age was 19.5 years (58% female). Most (70.4%) had no chronic health conditions other than a psychiatric disorder. The primary diagnoses were anxiety disorders or phobias (44.1%) and major depression (23%).

One in four visits included a code for self-harm, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempt. And almost one third lacked established outpatient care before the ED visit.

Results showed 28.6% of the ED group received mental health care follow-up within 7 days and 46.4% received it within 30 days.

Again, the strongest predictor of mental health follow-up was prior outpatient care. For example, compared with participants with no established outpatient care, those with both primary care and mental health care were the most likely to receive follow-up within 7 days (aOR, 4.06; 95% CI, 3.72-4.42).

These numbers “are far from the goal of making sure everybody is getting follow-up care within 7 days of an acute psychiatric event,” Dr. Skehan said.

He stressed the need for “accessible and appealing options for youth.” These could include telehealth services, improved communication among health care providers in the ED, and reducing barriers to access follow-up care.

“This probably highlights the need to have more case management and referral services, and maybe make sure patients have a follow-up appointment before they leave the emergency room,” said Dr. Skehan. “This doesn’t necessarily guarantee they’ll get there but hopefully it makes it more likely they will have that access should they need it.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

There is a concerning lack of follow-up care for young people who experience a mental health crisis, new research suggests.

Results from a large database study showed less than half of youth and young adults hospitalized for a psychiatric event received follow-up care within 7 days. The follow-up rate was less than 30% for those who had visited an ED.

The strongest predictor of follow-up was having received both primary and mental health care during the 6 months prior to using the acute service.

“For people discharging folks after a psychiatric crisis, whether it be in a hospital or emergency room setting, connecting them with their outpatient provider to ensure the transfer of care and continuity of care is vitally important to reduce risks for this population,” coinvestigator Brian Skehan, MD, PhD, assistant professor and psychiatrist, University of Massachusetts, Worcester, said during a press briefing.

If these discharged patients do not have a provider, “make sure they get one,” Lisa Dixon, MD, editor-in-chief of Psychiatric Services, added during the same briefing. “That’s the gift of life potentially for these young people.”

The findings were published online  in Psychiatric Services.
 

Alarming trends

The alarming suicide trends among youths were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Skehan noted.

He cited a 2021 study that showed more than 44% of high school students experienced persistent sadness or hopelessness over the previous year, 1 in 5 seriously considered suicide, and almost 1 in 10 actually attempted suicide.

“When we look at the number of young adults and adolescents struggling with behavioral health issues, the data trend is disturbing nationwide,” Dr. Skehan said.

The current study included participants aged 12-27 years who had private insurance. Many youth in this age category are experiencing significant changes, such as moving from high school to college and from pediatric providers to adult providers – and some “get lost in this transition,” said Dr. Skehan.

He noted many inpatient psychiatric units are not geared to young adults. “They may miss out on some aspects of inpatient care because it’s not geared to their developmental stage,” he said.

Assessing U.S. patient data in the IBM MarketScan commercial database (2013-2018), the researchers created two study samples: 95,153 inpatients and 108,576 patients who used the ED. All had an acute event stemming from a mental health condition.

The investigators explored the role of “established” outpatient care, defined as having had at least one visit with a provider of primary or mental health care in the 6 months prior to the acute psychiatric event.

Covariates included age at time of service (aged 12-17 years or 18-27 years), gender, health care plan type, psychiatric diagnosis, whether the acute event was self-harm or suicide related, and medical complexity.
 

Low follow-up rates

In the inpatient group, the average age was 18.9 years, the most common length of hospital stay was 4-6 days, and 1.5% left against medical advice. The most common primary diagnosis was major depression (53.7%), followed by bipolar disorder (22.3%). The least common disorders were PTSD, comorbid eating disorders, and disruptive disorders.

About one-third of participants had used both primary and mental health care during the 6 months before hospitalization, whereas 22.8% had no established outpatient care. Established care was most common among those with comorbid eating disorders and least common among those with psychotic disorders.

Results showed 42.7% of the hospitalized patients received follow up within 7 days and 67.4% received follow up within 30 days.

The strongest predictor of mental health follow-up care was established outpatient care. Compared with those who had no such care, those who had received both primary care and mental health care before the acute event had the highest odds of receiving follow-up (within 7 days, adjusted odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.68-2.94).

Older age and leaving against medical advice were associated with decreased likelihood of follow-up. Female sex, hospitalizations related to self-harm or suicidality, and longer length of stay were associated with increased likelihood of mental health follow-up care.

Compared with those hospitalized for major depression, those hospitalized for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, PTSD, disruptive disorders, or comorbid substance use disorder were less likely to receive mental health follow-up. For example, only 23.7% of youth with comorbid substance use discharged from the hospital had follow-up within 7 days.

Similar patterns were observed for 30-day follow-up care.
 

‘Accessible and appealing’ options needed

In the ED-visit group, the average age was 19.5 years (58% female). Most (70.4%) had no chronic health conditions other than a psychiatric disorder. The primary diagnoses were anxiety disorders or phobias (44.1%) and major depression (23%).

One in four visits included a code for self-harm, suicidal ideation, or suicide attempt. And almost one third lacked established outpatient care before the ED visit.

Results showed 28.6% of the ED group received mental health care follow-up within 7 days and 46.4% received it within 30 days.

Again, the strongest predictor of mental health follow-up was prior outpatient care. For example, compared with participants with no established outpatient care, those with both primary care and mental health care were the most likely to receive follow-up within 7 days (aOR, 4.06; 95% CI, 3.72-4.42).

These numbers “are far from the goal of making sure everybody is getting follow-up care within 7 days of an acute psychiatric event,” Dr. Skehan said.

He stressed the need for “accessible and appealing options for youth.” These could include telehealth services, improved communication among health care providers in the ED, and reducing barriers to access follow-up care.

“This probably highlights the need to have more case management and referral services, and maybe make sure patients have a follow-up appointment before they leave the emergency room,” said Dr. Skehan. “This doesn’t necessarily guarantee they’ll get there but hopefully it makes it more likely they will have that access should they need it.”

The study was funded by grants from the National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, from the National Institutes of Health. The investigators reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Despite money’s central role in our psychic lives, many trainees – and some seasoned practitioners – skirt around financial issues. Some clinicians confess that inquiring about patients’ finances feels “too personal.” They fear that asking about money could suggest that the clinician is primarily concerned with getting paid. Some clinicians feel that looking into patients’ finances might be unprofessional, outside one’s scope of practice. But it is not.

Trainees often receive little guidance concerning money matters in patients’ lives and treatments, considerations we have labeled clinical psychoeconomics. Considerable evidence suggests that financial concerns often provoke emotional distress and dysfunctional behaviors, and directly influence patient’s health care decisions. Financial issues also influence how clinicians view and react to patients.

We have recently reviewed (and illustrated through case vignettes) how money matters might impact psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychiatric treatments including psychotherapies.¹ Consider how money affects people’s lives: Money helps people meet multiple practical, psychological, and social needs by enabling them to obtain food, clothing, shelter, other material goods, services, discretionary time, and opportunities. And money strongly influences relationships. Regardless of poverty or wealth, thoughts and behaviors connected to acquiring, possessing, and disposing of money, and feelings accompanying these processes such as greed, neediness, envy, pride, shame, guilt, and self-satisfaction often underly intrapsychic and interpersonal conflicts.

Individuals constantly engage in numerous simultaneous conscious, preconscious, and unconscious neuro-economic trade-offs that determine goals, efforts, and timing. Many are financially influenced. Money influences how virtually all patients seek, receive, and sustain their mental health care including psychotherapy.

Money problems can be associated with insecurity, impotence, feeling unloved, and lack of freedom or subjugation. Individuals may resent how they’re forced to acquire money, and feel shamed or morally injured by their jobs, financial dependence on other family members, public assistance, or their questionable ways of obtaining money.

Impoverished individuals may face choosing between food, housing, medications, and medical care. Domestically abused individuals may reluctantly remain with their abusers, risking physical harm or death rather than face destitution. Some families tolerate severely disabled individuals at home because they rely on their disability checks and caregiver payments. Suicides may turn on how individuals forecast financial repercussions affecting their families. Desires to avoid debt may lead to treatment avoidance.

Individuals with enough money to get by face daily financially related choices involving competing needs, desires, values, and loyalties. They may experience conflicts concerning spending on necessities vs. indulgences or spending on oneself vs. significant others.

Whereas some wealthy individuals may assume unwarranted airs of superiority and entitlement, others may feel guilty about wealth, or fearful that others like them only for their money. Individuals on the receiving end of wealth may feel emotionally and behaviorally manipulated by their benefactors.
 

Assessment

Assessments should consider how financial matters have shaped patients’ early psychological development as well their current lives. How do patients’ emotions, thoughts, and behaviors reflect money matters? What money-related pathologies are evident? What aspects of the patient’s “financial world” seem modifiable?

Financial questions should be posed colloquially. Screeners include: “Where do you live?”, “Who’s in the home?”, “How do you (all) manage financially?”, “What do you all do for a living?”, “How do you make ends meet?”, and “What financial problems are you facing?” Clinicians can quickly learn about patients’ financial self-sufficiencies, individuals for whom they bear financial responsibility, and others they rely on for support, for example, relatives. If patients avoid answering such questions forthrightly, particularly when financial arrangements are “complicated,” clinicians will want to revisit these issues later after establishing a firmer alliance but continue to wonder about the meaning of the patient’s reluctance.

Clinically, money matters manifest intrapsychically or interpersonally in three ways: as explicit conflicts, implicit issues, and unequivocal money-related pathologies. When explicit, patients, families, and couples are fully aware of the conflicts but have difficulty resolving financial disputes. When conflicts are implicit, money problems may be unacknowledged, avoided, denied, or minimized. Conflicts concerning money are often transmitted trans-generationally.

Psychopathological conditions unequivocally linked to money include compulsive shopping, gambling disorders, miserly hoarding, impulse buying, and spending sprees during hypomanic and manic states. Mounting debts may create progressively insurmountable sources of distress. Money can be weaponized to sadistically create enticement, envy, or deprivation. Some monetarily antisocial individuals compromise interpersonal relationships as well as treatments. Individuals with alcohol/substance use disorders may spend so much on substances that little is left for necessities. Financially needy individuals may engage in morally questionable behaviors they might otherwise shun.
 

Case formulation and treatment planning

Incorporating money matters into case formulations entails demonstrating how financial concerns influenced maladaptive development and distort current attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors.

Concurrently, clinicians should acknowledge patients’ reality-based fiscal decisions, appreciating cultural and family value differences concerning how money should be acquired and spent. Since money often determines frequency and duration of treatment visits, clinicians are ethically obligated to discuss with patients what they might expect from different medications and psychotherapies, and their comparative costs.
 

Money matters’ impact on psychotherapies

Money matters often affect transference and countertransference reactions. Some reactions stem from how patients and clinicians compare their own financial situations with those of the other.

To help identify and ameliorate money-related countertransference responses, clinicians can reflect on questions such as: “How comfortable are you with people who are much poorer or richer than you are?” “How comfortable are you with impoverished individuals or with multimillionaires or their children?” And “why?” For trainees, all these reactions should be discussed in supervision.
 

Conclusions

To summarize, four clinical psychoeconomic issues should be routinely assessed and factored into psychiatric case formulations and treatment plans: how financial issues 1) have impacted patients’ psychological development; 2) impact patients’ current lives; 3) are likely to impact access, type, intensity, and duration of treatment visits; and 4) might provoke money-related transference and countertransference concerns.

In advising patients about treatment options, clinicians should discuss each treatment’s relative effectiveness and estimated costs of care. Patients’ decisions will likely be heavily influenced by financial considerations.

Dr. Yager is based in the department of psychiatry, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. Dr. Kay is based in the department of psychiatry, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio. No external funds were received for this project, and the authors have no conflicts to disclose.

Reference

1. Yager J and Kay J. Money matters in psychiatric assessment, case formulation, treatment planning, and ongoing psychotherapy: Clinical psychoeconomics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2022 Jun 10. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001552.

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

Medicine or dietary supplement? N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is marketed as both and in 2021, the supplement abruptly became difficult to find, causing distress to people who had been using it for a variety of conditions. The story behind its disappearance is one of a cat-and-mouse chase between manufacturers, advocacy agencies, and the Food and Drug Administration.

NAC is a medication that was approved by the FDA in 1963. It has two FDA-approved uses: To prevent hepatotoxicity after overdose with acetaminophen, administered intravenously or by mouth, and as a mucolytic agent – previously available as Mucomyst, now available only as a generic – given by inhaler or nebulizer for pulmonary illnesses. Since the 1990s, NAC has been labeled by manufacturers as a dietary supplement. It is a derivative of the amino acid L-cysteine and a precursor to glutathione, an antioxidant.

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

The current academic psychiatry paradigm reinforces that lithium reduces suicide risk, more so than other medications, including valproate. However, data from multiple sources contradict this “evidence-based” belief.

Data do not support lithium’s supposed advantage

An 8-year prospective study in Sweden by Song et al¹ tracked 51,535 patients with bipolar disorder from 2005 to 2013. In their conclusions, the authors of this study omitted some surprising numbers that contradict the dominant paradigm. There were 230 (1.089%) completed suicides in the lithium group (N = 21,129), 99 (1.177%) in the valproate group (N = 8,411), and 308 (1.195%) in the “other medication” group (N = 25,780). This difference of .088% is too small (95% CI, -.180% to .358%) to substantiate the purported advantage of lithium over valproate. More important is that in terms of suicide-related events, the medication group excluding lithium and valproate had 2,018 (7.8%) events vs lithium 2,142 (10.1%) and valproate 1,105 (13.1%). The difference of 2.3% is statistically significant (95% CI, 1.8% to 2.8%). These numbers reflect fewer suicide-related events with psychiatric medications other than lithium and valproate. Compounding the problem is a design flaw in which 3,785 patients were counted twice in the lithium and valproate groups (21,129 + 8,411 + 25,780 = 55,320, which is more than the 51,535 patients in the study). By falsely inflating the denominator (N) for the lithium and valproate groups, the respective published rates are deceptively lower than the actual rates. Song et al¹ did not provide an adequate explanation for these findings and omitted them from their conclusions.

In Schatzberg’s Manual of Clinical Psychopharmacology, the authors cited Song et al¹ but omitted these findings as well, and stated “lithium is clearly effective in preventing suicide attempts and completions in bipolar patients.”² In Stahl’s Essential Psychopharmacology, the author wrote “lithium actually reduces suicide in patients with bipolar disorder.”³ In a review article, Baldessarini et al⁴ stated “the overall risk of suicides and attempts was five times less among lithium-treated subjects.” These claims are contradicted by the data from Song et al.¹ In contrast, in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of 98 patients with bipolar disorder and past suicide attempts who were randomly assigned to treatment with lithium or valproate, Oquendo et al⁵ did not find any difference between lithium and valproate in preventing suicide events, and concluded “it is perhaps continuity of treatment—any treatment—that attenuates risk of suicidal behavior in bipolar disorder.”

In an overlapping period, National Poison Data System (NPDS) data of single substance exposures painted a different picture in the United States.⁶ During 2006-2013, the lithium group (N = 26,144) had 32 deaths (all causes) (.122%), and the valproate group (N = 25,630) had 16 deaths (.062%). During 2006-2020, the lithium group (N = 52,262) had 55 deaths (.105%), and the valproate group (N = 46,569) had 31 deaths (.067%). Clearly there is a major disconnect between lithium’s advertised ability to reduce suicide risk and the actual mortality rate, as evidenced by 98,831 cases reported to NPDS during 2006-2020. One would expect a lower rate in the lithium group, but data show it is higher than in the valproate group. This underscores the common fallacy of most lithium studies: each is based on a very small sample (N < 100), and the statistical inference about the entire population is tenuous. If lithium truly reduces suicide risk 5-fold, it would be seen in a sample of 98,831. The law of large numbers and central limit theorem state that as N increases, the variability of the rate progressively decreases. This can be easily demonstrated with computer simulation models and simple Python code, or on the average fuel economy display of most cars.

What about the relative lethality?

The APA Textbook of Suicide Risk Assessment and Management stated that it is important to consider the relative lethality (RL) of prescription medications.⁷ The RL equation (RL = 310x / LD50) represents the ratio of a 30-day supply of medication to the human equivalent LD50 for a 60-kg person (x is the daily dose and LD50 is the rat oral lethal dose 50).⁸ Time series analysis shows that the lithium relative morbidity (RM) is consistently double that of valproate (Figure⁶). Regression models have shown high correlation and causality between RL and RM.^9-11 It is surprising that valproate (RL = 1,666%) has a lower RM than lithium (RL = 1,063%). This paradox can be easily explained with clinical insight. The RL equation compares medications at the maximum daily dose, but in routine practice valproate is commonly prescribed at 1,000 mg/d (28% of the maximum 3,600 mg/d). Lithium is commonly prescribed at 1,200 mg/d (67% of the maximum 1,800 mg/d). Within these dosing parameters, the effective RL is valproate 463% and lithium 709%. The 2020 RM is valproate 22% and lithium 43%.¹² The COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the predicted RM. Confirming these numbers, Song et al¹ acknowledged “greater safety in case of overdose for valproate in clinical practice.” Baldessarini et al⁴ asserted “the fatality risk of lithium overdose is only moderate, and very similar to modern antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics.”⁴ This claim is contradicted by the RL equation and regression models.^7-11 Lithium’s RL is 19 times higher than that of fluoxetine, and 30 times higher than that of olanzapine.⁸ Lithium’s RM is nearly identical to amitriptyline (42%), vs fluoxetine (12%).¹²

Data-driven analysis shows that lithium has higher rates of morbidity and mortality than valproate, as evidenced by 98,831 NPDS cases during 2006-2020. These hard numbers speak for themselves and contradict the dominant paradigm, which proclaims lithium’s superiority in reducing suicide risk.

The current academic psychiatry paradigm reinforces that lithium reduces suicide risk, more so than other medications, including valproate. However, data from multiple sources contradict this “evidence-based” belief.

Data do not support lithium’s supposed advantage

An 8-year prospective study in Sweden by Song et al¹ tracked 51,535 patients with bipolar disorder from 2005 to 2013. In their conclusions, the authors of this study omitted some surprising numbers that contradict the dominant paradigm. There were 230 (1.089%) completed suicides in the lithium group (N = 21,129), 99 (1.177%) in the valproate group (N = 8,411), and 308 (1.195%) in the “other medication” group (N = 25,780). This difference of .088% is too small (95% CI, -.180% to .358%) to substantiate the purported advantage of lithium over valproate. More important is that in terms of suicide-related events, the medication group excluding lithium and valproate had 2,018 (7.8%) events vs lithium 2,142 (10.1%) and valproate 1,105 (13.1%). The difference of 2.3% is statistically significant (95% CI, 1.8% to 2.8%). These numbers reflect fewer suicide-related events with psychiatric medications other than lithium and valproate. Compounding the problem is a design flaw in which 3,785 patients were counted twice in the lithium and valproate groups (21,129 + 8,411 + 25,780 = 55,320, which is more than the 51,535 patients in the study). By falsely inflating the denominator (N) for the lithium and valproate groups, the respective published rates are deceptively lower than the actual rates. Song et al¹ did not provide an adequate explanation for these findings and omitted them from their conclusions.

In Schatzberg’s Manual of Clinical Psychopharmacology, the authors cited Song et al¹ but omitted these findings as well, and stated “lithium is clearly effective in preventing suicide attempts and completions in bipolar patients.”² In Stahl’s Essential Psychopharmacology, the author wrote “lithium actually reduces suicide in patients with bipolar disorder.”³ In a review article, Baldessarini et al⁴ stated “the overall risk of suicides and attempts was five times less among lithium-treated subjects.” These claims are contradicted by the data from Song et al.¹ In contrast, in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of 98 patients with bipolar disorder and past suicide attempts who were randomly assigned to treatment with lithium or valproate, Oquendo et al⁵ did not find any difference between lithium and valproate in preventing suicide events, and concluded “it is perhaps continuity of treatment—any treatment—that attenuates risk of suicidal behavior in bipolar disorder.”

In an overlapping period, National Poison Data System (NPDS) data of single substance exposures painted a different picture in the United States.⁶ During 2006-2013, the lithium group (N = 26,144) had 32 deaths (all causes) (.122%), and the valproate group (N = 25,630) had 16 deaths (.062%). During 2006-2020, the lithium group (N = 52,262) had 55 deaths (.105%), and the valproate group (N = 46,569) had 31 deaths (.067%). Clearly there is a major disconnect between lithium’s advertised ability to reduce suicide risk and the actual mortality rate, as evidenced by 98,831 cases reported to NPDS during 2006-2020. One would expect a lower rate in the lithium group, but data show it is higher than in the valproate group. This underscores the common fallacy of most lithium studies: each is based on a very small sample (N < 100), and the statistical inference about the entire population is tenuous. If lithium truly reduces suicide risk 5-fold, it would be seen in a sample of 98,831. The law of large numbers and central limit theorem state that as N increases, the variability of the rate progressively decreases. This can be easily demonstrated with computer simulation models and simple Python code, or on the average fuel economy display of most cars.

What about the relative lethality?

The APA Textbook of Suicide Risk Assessment and Management stated that it is important to consider the relative lethality (RL) of prescription medications.⁷ The RL equation (RL = 310x / LD50) represents the ratio of a 30-day supply of medication to the human equivalent LD50 for a 60-kg person (x is the daily dose and LD50 is the rat oral lethal dose 50).⁸ Time series analysis shows that the lithium relative morbidity (RM) is consistently double that of valproate (Figure⁶). Regression models have shown high correlation and causality between RL and RM.^9-11 It is surprising that valproate (RL = 1,666%) has a lower RM than lithium (RL = 1,063%). This paradox can be easily explained with clinical insight. The RL equation compares medications at the maximum daily dose, but in routine practice valproate is commonly prescribed at 1,000 mg/d (28% of the maximum 3,600 mg/d). Lithium is commonly prescribed at 1,200 mg/d (67% of the maximum 1,800 mg/d). Within these dosing parameters, the effective RL is valproate 463% and lithium 709%. The 2020 RM is valproate 22% and lithium 43%.¹² The COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the predicted RM. Confirming these numbers, Song et al¹ acknowledged “greater safety in case of overdose for valproate in clinical practice.” Baldessarini et al⁴ asserted “the fatality risk of lithium overdose is only moderate, and very similar to modern antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics.”⁴ This claim is contradicted by the RL equation and regression models.^7-11 Lithium’s RL is 19 times higher than that of fluoxetine, and 30 times higher than that of olanzapine.⁸ Lithium’s RM is nearly identical to amitriptyline (42%), vs fluoxetine (12%).¹²

Data-driven analysis shows that lithium has higher rates of morbidity and mortality than valproate, as evidenced by 98,831 NPDS cases during 2006-2020. These hard numbers speak for themselves and contradict the dominant paradigm, which proclaims lithium’s superiority in reducing suicide risk.

The current academic psychiatry paradigm reinforces that lithium reduces suicide risk, more so than other medications, including valproate. However, data from multiple sources contradict this “evidence-based” belief.

Data do not support lithium’s supposed advantage

An 8-year prospective study in Sweden by Song et al¹ tracked 51,535 patients with bipolar disorder from 2005 to 2013. In their conclusions, the authors of this study omitted some surprising numbers that contradict the dominant paradigm. There were 230 (1.089%) completed suicides in the lithium group (N = 21,129), 99 (1.177%) in the valproate group (N = 8,411), and 308 (1.195%) in the “other medication” group (N = 25,780). This difference of .088% is too small (95% CI, -.180% to .358%) to substantiate the purported advantage of lithium over valproate. More important is that in terms of suicide-related events, the medication group excluding lithium and valproate had 2,018 (7.8%) events vs lithium 2,142 (10.1%) and valproate 1,105 (13.1%). The difference of 2.3% is statistically significant (95% CI, 1.8% to 2.8%). These numbers reflect fewer suicide-related events with psychiatric medications other than lithium and valproate. Compounding the problem is a design flaw in which 3,785 patients were counted twice in the lithium and valproate groups (21,129 + 8,411 + 25,780 = 55,320, which is more than the 51,535 patients in the study). By falsely inflating the denominator (N) for the lithium and valproate groups, the respective published rates are deceptively lower than the actual rates. Song et al¹ did not provide an adequate explanation for these findings and omitted them from their conclusions.

In Schatzberg’s Manual of Clinical Psychopharmacology, the authors cited Song et al¹ but omitted these findings as well, and stated “lithium is clearly effective in preventing suicide attempts and completions in bipolar patients.”² In Stahl’s Essential Psychopharmacology, the author wrote “lithium actually reduces suicide in patients with bipolar disorder.”³ In a review article, Baldessarini et al⁴ stated “the overall risk of suicides and attempts was five times less among lithium-treated subjects.” These claims are contradicted by the data from Song et al.¹ In contrast, in a double-blind, randomized clinical trial of 98 patients with bipolar disorder and past suicide attempts who were randomly assigned to treatment with lithium or valproate, Oquendo et al⁵ did not find any difference between lithium and valproate in preventing suicide events, and concluded “it is perhaps continuity of treatment—any treatment—that attenuates risk of suicidal behavior in bipolar disorder.”

In an overlapping period, National Poison Data System (NPDS) data of single substance exposures painted a different picture in the United States.⁶ During 2006-2013, the lithium group (N = 26,144) had 32 deaths (all causes) (.122%), and the valproate group (N = 25,630) had 16 deaths (.062%). During 2006-2020, the lithium group (N = 52,262) had 55 deaths (.105%), and the valproate group (N = 46,569) had 31 deaths (.067%). Clearly there is a major disconnect between lithium’s advertised ability to reduce suicide risk and the actual mortality rate, as evidenced by 98,831 cases reported to NPDS during 2006-2020. One would expect a lower rate in the lithium group, but data show it is higher than in the valproate group. This underscores the common fallacy of most lithium studies: each is based on a very small sample (N < 100), and the statistical inference about the entire population is tenuous. If lithium truly reduces suicide risk 5-fold, it would be seen in a sample of 98,831. The law of large numbers and central limit theorem state that as N increases, the variability of the rate progressively decreases. This can be easily demonstrated with computer simulation models and simple Python code, or on the average fuel economy display of most cars.

What about the relative lethality?

The APA Textbook of Suicide Risk Assessment and Management stated that it is important to consider the relative lethality (RL) of prescription medications.⁷ The RL equation (RL = 310x / LD50) represents the ratio of a 30-day supply of medication to the human equivalent LD50 for a 60-kg person (x is the daily dose and LD50 is the rat oral lethal dose 50).⁸ Time series analysis shows that the lithium relative morbidity (RM) is consistently double that of valproate (Figure⁶). Regression models have shown high correlation and causality between RL and RM.^9-11 It is surprising that valproate (RL = 1,666%) has a lower RM than lithium (RL = 1,063%). This paradox can be easily explained with clinical insight. The RL equation compares medications at the maximum daily dose, but in routine practice valproate is commonly prescribed at 1,000 mg/d (28% of the maximum 3,600 mg/d). Lithium is commonly prescribed at 1,200 mg/d (67% of the maximum 1,800 mg/d). Within these dosing parameters, the effective RL is valproate 463% and lithium 709%. The 2020 RM is valproate 22% and lithium 43%.¹² The COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the predicted RM. Confirming these numbers, Song et al¹ acknowledged “greater safety in case of overdose for valproate in clinical practice.” Baldessarini et al⁴ asserted “the fatality risk of lithium overdose is only moderate, and very similar to modern antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics.”⁴ This claim is contradicted by the RL equation and regression models.^7-11 Lithium’s RL is 19 times higher than that of fluoxetine, and 30 times higher than that of olanzapine.⁸ Lithium’s RM is nearly identical to amitriptyline (42%), vs fluoxetine (12%).¹²

Data-driven analysis shows that lithium has higher rates of morbidity and mortality than valproate, as evidenced by 98,831 NPDS cases during 2006-2020. These hard numbers speak for themselves and contradict the dominant paradigm, which proclaims lithium’s superiority in reducing suicide risk.

Climate change is causing intense heat waves that threaten human health across the globe.¹ Given their unique biological, behavioral, and social factors, patients with serious mental illness (SMI)—which includes schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, and severe depression—are at higher risk of developing and dying from heat-related illnesses such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke.¹ In this article, we discuss factors that increase the risk of heat-related illnesses in patients with SMI and outline steps you can take to educate and prepare patients for heat waves.

A confluence of factors increases risk

Thermoregulatory dysfunction is thought to be intrinsic to patients with schizophrenia partly due to dysregulated dopaminergic neurotransmission.² This is compounded by these patients’ higher burden of chronic medical comorbidities such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, which together with psychotropic (ie, antipsychotics, antidepressants, lithium, benzodiazepines) and medical medications (ie, certain antihypertensives, diuretics, treatment for urinary incontinence) further disrupt the body’s cooling strategies and increase vulnerability to heat-related illnesses.^1,3 Antipsychotics commonly prescribed to patients with SMI increase hyperthermia risk largely by 2 mechanisms: central and peripheral thermal dysregulation, and anticholinergic properties (ie, olanzapine, clozapine, chlorpromazine).^2,3 Other anticholinergic medications prescribed to treat extrapyramidal symptoms (ie, diphenhydramine, benztropine, trihexyphenidyl), anxiety, depression, and insomnia (ie, paroxetine, trazodone, doxepin) further add insult to injury because they impair sweating, which decreases the body’s ability to eliminate heat through evaporation.^2,3 Additionally, high temperature exacerbates psychiatric symptoms in patients with SMI, resulting in increased hospitalizations and emergency department visits.¹ Patients with SMI also commonly have cognitive deficits, which may interfere with their ability to prepare for extreme heat and make it difficult for them to protect themselves. Finally, patients with SMI often have lower socioeconomic status with reduced access to air conditioning.^1,2

How to keep patients safe

The acronym HEAT provides a framework that psychiatrists can use to highlight the importance of planning for heat waves in their institution and guiding discussions with individual patients about heat-related illnesses (Table 1).

Help the health care system where you work plan and prepare for heat waves. In-service training in mental health settings such as outpatient clinics, shelters, group homes, and residential programs can help staff identify patients at particular risk and reinforce key prevention messages.

Educate patients and their caregivers on strategies for preventing heat-related illness. Informational materials can be distributed in clinics, residential settings, and day programs. A 1-page downloadable pamphlet available at https://smiadviser.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SMI-Heat-Stroke-ver1.0-FINAL.pdf summarizes key prevention messages of staying hydrated, staying cool, and staying safe.

Assess personalized heat-related risks. Inquire about patients’ daily activities, access to air conditioning, and water intake. Minimize the use of anticholinergic medications. Identify who patients can turn to for assistance, especially for those who struggle with cognitive impairment and social isolation.

Teach patients, caregivers, and staff the signs and symptoms of heat exhaustion and heat stroke and how to respond in such situations.

HEAT focuses psychiatric clinicians on preparing and protecting patients with SMI against dangerous heat waves. Clinicians can take a proactive leadership role in disseminating basic principles of heat-related illness prevention and heat-wave toolkits by using resources available from organizations such as the Climate Psychiatry Alliance (Table 2). They can also initiate advocacy efforts to raise awareness about the elevated risks of heat-related illnesses in this vulnerable population.

Climate change is causing intense heat waves that threaten human health across the globe.¹ Given their unique biological, behavioral, and social factors, patients with serious mental illness (SMI)—which includes schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, and severe depression—are at higher risk of developing and dying from heat-related illnesses such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke.¹ In this article, we discuss factors that increase the risk of heat-related illnesses in patients with SMI and outline steps you can take to educate and prepare patients for heat waves.

A confluence of factors increases risk

Thermoregulatory dysfunction is thought to be intrinsic to patients with schizophrenia partly due to dysregulated dopaminergic neurotransmission.² This is compounded by these patients’ higher burden of chronic medical comorbidities such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, which together with psychotropic (ie, antipsychotics, antidepressants, lithium, benzodiazepines) and medical medications (ie, certain antihypertensives, diuretics, treatment for urinary incontinence) further disrupt the body’s cooling strategies and increase vulnerability to heat-related illnesses.^1,3 Antipsychotics commonly prescribed to patients with SMI increase hyperthermia risk largely by 2 mechanisms: central and peripheral thermal dysregulation, and anticholinergic properties (ie, olanzapine, clozapine, chlorpromazine).^2,3 Other anticholinergic medications prescribed to treat extrapyramidal symptoms (ie, diphenhydramine, benztropine, trihexyphenidyl), anxiety, depression, and insomnia (ie, paroxetine, trazodone, doxepin) further add insult to injury because they impair sweating, which decreases the body’s ability to eliminate heat through evaporation.^2,3 Additionally, high temperature exacerbates psychiatric symptoms in patients with SMI, resulting in increased hospitalizations and emergency department visits.¹ Patients with SMI also commonly have cognitive deficits, which may interfere with their ability to prepare for extreme heat and make it difficult for them to protect themselves. Finally, patients with SMI often have lower socioeconomic status with reduced access to air conditioning.^1,2

How to keep patients safe

The acronym HEAT provides a framework that psychiatrists can use to highlight the importance of planning for heat waves in their institution and guiding discussions with individual patients about heat-related illnesses (Table 1).

Help the health care system where you work plan and prepare for heat waves. In-service training in mental health settings such as outpatient clinics, shelters, group homes, and residential programs can help staff identify patients at particular risk and reinforce key prevention messages.

Educate patients and their caregivers on strategies for preventing heat-related illness. Informational materials can be distributed in clinics, residential settings, and day programs. A 1-page downloadable pamphlet available at https://smiadviser.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SMI-Heat-Stroke-ver1.0-FINAL.pdf summarizes key prevention messages of staying hydrated, staying cool, and staying safe.

Assess personalized heat-related risks. Inquire about patients’ daily activities, access to air conditioning, and water intake. Minimize the use of anticholinergic medications. Identify who patients can turn to for assistance, especially for those who struggle with cognitive impairment and social isolation.

Teach patients, caregivers, and staff the signs and symptoms of heat exhaustion and heat stroke and how to respond in such situations.

HEAT focuses psychiatric clinicians on preparing and protecting patients with SMI against dangerous heat waves. Clinicians can take a proactive leadership role in disseminating basic principles of heat-related illness prevention and heat-wave toolkits by using resources available from organizations such as the Climate Psychiatry Alliance (Table 2). They can also initiate advocacy efforts to raise awareness about the elevated risks of heat-related illnesses in this vulnerable population.

Climate change is causing intense heat waves that threaten human health across the globe.¹ Given their unique biological, behavioral, and social factors, patients with serious mental illness (SMI)—which includes schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, and severe depression—are at higher risk of developing and dying from heat-related illnesses such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke.¹ In this article, we discuss factors that increase the risk of heat-related illnesses in patients with SMI and outline steps you can take to educate and prepare patients for heat waves.

A confluence of factors increases risk

Thermoregulatory dysfunction is thought to be intrinsic to patients with schizophrenia partly due to dysregulated dopaminergic neurotransmission.² This is compounded by these patients’ higher burden of chronic medical comorbidities such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, which together with psychotropic (ie, antipsychotics, antidepressants, lithium, benzodiazepines) and medical medications (ie, certain antihypertensives, diuretics, treatment for urinary incontinence) further disrupt the body’s cooling strategies and increase vulnerability to heat-related illnesses.^1,3 Antipsychotics commonly prescribed to patients with SMI increase hyperthermia risk largely by 2 mechanisms: central and peripheral thermal dysregulation, and anticholinergic properties (ie, olanzapine, clozapine, chlorpromazine).^2,3 Other anticholinergic medications prescribed to treat extrapyramidal symptoms (ie, diphenhydramine, benztropine, trihexyphenidyl), anxiety, depression, and insomnia (ie, paroxetine, trazodone, doxepin) further add insult to injury because they impair sweating, which decreases the body’s ability to eliminate heat through evaporation.^2,3 Additionally, high temperature exacerbates psychiatric symptoms in patients with SMI, resulting in increased hospitalizations and emergency department visits.¹ Patients with SMI also commonly have cognitive deficits, which may interfere with their ability to prepare for extreme heat and make it difficult for them to protect themselves. Finally, patients with SMI often have lower socioeconomic status with reduced access to air conditioning.^1,2

How to keep patients safe

The acronym HEAT provides a framework that psychiatrists can use to highlight the importance of planning for heat waves in their institution and guiding discussions with individual patients about heat-related illnesses (Table 1).

Help the health care system where you work plan and prepare for heat waves. In-service training in mental health settings such as outpatient clinics, shelters, group homes, and residential programs can help staff identify patients at particular risk and reinforce key prevention messages.

Educate patients and their caregivers on strategies for preventing heat-related illness. Informational materials can be distributed in clinics, residential settings, and day programs. A 1-page downloadable pamphlet available at https://smiadviser.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SMI-Heat-Stroke-ver1.0-FINAL.pdf summarizes key prevention messages of staying hydrated, staying cool, and staying safe.

Assess personalized heat-related risks. Inquire about patients’ daily activities, access to air conditioning, and water intake. Minimize the use of anticholinergic medications. Identify who patients can turn to for assistance, especially for those who struggle with cognitive impairment and social isolation.

Teach patients, caregivers, and staff the signs and symptoms of heat exhaustion and heat stroke and how to respond in such situations.

HEAT focuses psychiatric clinicians on preparing and protecting patients with SMI against dangerous heat waves. Clinicians can take a proactive leadership role in disseminating basic principles of heat-related illness prevention and heat-wave toolkits by using resources available from organizations such as the Climate Psychiatry Alliance (Table 2). They can also initiate advocacy efforts to raise awareness about the elevated risks of heat-related illnesses in this vulnerable population.

Though Cade discovered it 70 years ago, lithium is still considered the gold standard treatment for preventing manic and depressive phases of bipolar disorder (BD). In addition to its primary indication as a mood stabilizer, lithium has demonstrated efficacy as an augmenting medication for unipolar major depressive disorder.¹ While lithium is a first-line agent for BD, it does not improve symptoms in every patient. In a 2004 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials of patients with BD, Geddes et al² found lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing the recurrence of mania, with 60% in the lithium group remaining stable compared to 40% in the placebo group. Being able to predict which patients will respond to lithium is crucial to prevent unnecessary exposure to lithium, which can produce significant adverse effects, including somnolence, nausea, diarrhea, and hypothyroidism.²

Several studies have investigated various clinical factors that might predict which patients with BD will respond to lithium. In a review, Kleindienst et al³ highlighted 3 factors that predicted a positive response to lithium:

• fewer hospitalizations prior to treatment
• an episodic course characterized sequentially by mania, depression, and then euthymia
• a later age (>50) at onset of BD.

Recent studies and reviews have isolated additional positive predictors, including having a family history of BD and a shorter duration of illness before receiving lithium, as well as negative predictors, such as rapid cycling, a large number of previous hospitalizations, a depression/mania/euthymia pattern, mood-incongruent psychotic features, and the presence of residual symptoms between mood episodes.^3,4

The Table provides a list of probable and possible positive and negative predictors for therapeutic response to lithium in patients with BD.^3-6 While relevant, the factors listed as possible predictors may not carry as much influence on lithium responsivity as those categorized as probable predictors.

Because of heterogeneity among studies, clinicians should consider their patient’s presentation as a whole, rather than basing medication choice on independent factors. Ultimately, more studies are required to fully determine the most relevant clinical parameters for lithium response. Overall, however, it appears these clinical factors could be extremely useful to guide psychiatrists in the optimal use of lithium while caring for patients with BD.

Though Cade discovered it 70 years ago, lithium is still considered the gold standard treatment for preventing manic and depressive phases of bipolar disorder (BD). In addition to its primary indication as a mood stabilizer, lithium has demonstrated efficacy as an augmenting medication for unipolar major depressive disorder.¹ While lithium is a first-line agent for BD, it does not improve symptoms in every patient. In a 2004 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials of patients with BD, Geddes et al² found lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing the recurrence of mania, with 60% in the lithium group remaining stable compared to 40% in the placebo group. Being able to predict which patients will respond to lithium is crucial to prevent unnecessary exposure to lithium, which can produce significant adverse effects, including somnolence, nausea, diarrhea, and hypothyroidism.²

Several studies have investigated various clinical factors that might predict which patients with BD will respond to lithium. In a review, Kleindienst et al³ highlighted 3 factors that predicted a positive response to lithium:

• fewer hospitalizations prior to treatment
• an episodic course characterized sequentially by mania, depression, and then euthymia
• a later age (>50) at onset of BD.

Recent studies and reviews have isolated additional positive predictors, including having a family history of BD and a shorter duration of illness before receiving lithium, as well as negative predictors, such as rapid cycling, a large number of previous hospitalizations, a depression/mania/euthymia pattern, mood-incongruent psychotic features, and the presence of residual symptoms between mood episodes.^3,4

The Table provides a list of probable and possible positive and negative predictors for therapeutic response to lithium in patients with BD.^3-6 While relevant, the factors listed as possible predictors may not carry as much influence on lithium responsivity as those categorized as probable predictors.

Because of heterogeneity among studies, clinicians should consider their patient’s presentation as a whole, rather than basing medication choice on independent factors. Ultimately, more studies are required to fully determine the most relevant clinical parameters for lithium response. Overall, however, it appears these clinical factors could be extremely useful to guide psychiatrists in the optimal use of lithium while caring for patients with BD.

Though Cade discovered it 70 years ago, lithium is still considered the gold standard treatment for preventing manic and depressive phases of bipolar disorder (BD). In addition to its primary indication as a mood stabilizer, lithium has demonstrated efficacy as an augmenting medication for unipolar major depressive disorder.¹ While lithium is a first-line agent for BD, it does not improve symptoms in every patient. In a 2004 meta-analysis of 5 randomized controlled trials of patients with BD, Geddes et al² found lithium was more effective than placebo in preventing the recurrence of mania, with 60% in the lithium group remaining stable compared to 40% in the placebo group. Being able to predict which patients will respond to lithium is crucial to prevent unnecessary exposure to lithium, which can produce significant adverse effects, including somnolence, nausea, diarrhea, and hypothyroidism.²

Several studies have investigated various clinical factors that might predict which patients with BD will respond to lithium. In a review, Kleindienst et al³ highlighted 3 factors that predicted a positive response to lithium:

• fewer hospitalizations prior to treatment
• an episodic course characterized sequentially by mania, depression, and then euthymia
• a later age (>50) at onset of BD.

Recent studies and reviews have isolated additional positive predictors, including having a family history of BD and a shorter duration of illness before receiving lithium, as well as negative predictors, such as rapid cycling, a large number of previous hospitalizations, a depression/mania/euthymia pattern, mood-incongruent psychotic features, and the presence of residual symptoms between mood episodes.^3,4

The Table provides a list of probable and possible positive and negative predictors for therapeutic response to lithium in patients with BD.^3-6 While relevant, the factors listed as possible predictors may not carry as much influence on lithium responsivity as those categorized as probable predictors.

Because of heterogeneity among studies, clinicians should consider their patient’s presentation as a whole, rather than basing medication choice on independent factors. Ultimately, more studies are required to fully determine the most relevant clinical parameters for lithium response. Overall, however, it appears these clinical factors could be extremely useful to guide psychiatrists in the optimal use of lithium while caring for patients with BD.

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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

Providing peer or community health workers to help psychiatric patients complete psychiatric advance directives (PAD) – which govern care in advance of a mental health crisis – is associated with a significant reduction in compulsory hospital admissions, new research shows.

Results of a randomized trial showed the peer worker PAD group had a 42% reduction in compulsory admission over the following 12 months. This study group also had lower symptom scores, greater rates of recovery, and increased empowerment, compared with patients assigned to usual care.

In addition to proving that PADs are effective in reducing compulsory admission, the results show that facilitation by peer workers is relevant, study investigator Aurélie Tinland, MD, PhD, Faculté de Médecine Timone, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France, told delegates attending the virtual European Psychiatric Association (EPA) 2022 Congress. The study was simultaneously published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

However, Dr. Tinland noted that more research that includes “harder to reach” populations is needed. In addition, greater use of PADs is also key to reducing compulsory admissions.
 

‘Most coercive’ country

The researchers note that respect for patient autonomy is a strong pillar of health care, such that “involuntary treatment should be unusual.” However, they point out that “compulsory psychiatric admissions are far too common in countries of all income levels.”

In France, said Dr. Tinland, 24% of psychiatric hospitalizations are compulsory. The country is ranked the sixth “most coercive” country in the world, and there are concerns about human rights in French psychiatric facilities.

She added that advance care statements are the most efficient tool for reducing coercion, with one study suggesting they could cut rates by 25%, compared with usual care.

However, she noted there is an “asymmetry” between medical professionals and patients and a risk of “undue influence” when clinicians facilitate the completion of care statements.

To examine the impact on clinical outcomes of peer-worker facilitated PADs, the researchers studied adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar I disorder, or schizoaffective disorder who were admitted to a psychiatric hospital within the previous 12 months. Peer workers are individuals who have lived experience with mental illness and help inform and guide current patients about care options in the event of a mental health crisis.

Study participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to an intervention group or a usual care control group. The intervention group received a PAD document and were assigned a peer worker while the usual care group received comprehensive information about the PAD concept at study entry and were free to complete it, but they were not connected with a peer worker.

The PAD document included information about future treatment and support preferences, early signs of relapse, and coping strategies. Participants could meet the peer worker in a place of their choice and be supported in drafting the document and in sharing it with health care professionals.

In all, 394 individuals completed the study. The majority (61%) of participants were male and 66% had completed post-secondary education. Schizophrenia was diagnosed in 45%, bipolar I disorder in 36%, and schizoaffective disorder in 19%.

Participants in the intervention group were significantly younger than those in the control group, with a mean of 37.4 years versus 41 years (P = .003) and were less likely to have one or more somatic comorbidities, at 61.2% versus 69.2%.

A PAD was completed by 54.6% of individuals in the intervention group versus 7.1% of controls (P < .001). The PAD was written with peer worker support by 41.3% of those in the intervention and by 2% of controls. Of those who completed a PAD, 75.7% met care facilitators, and 27.1% used it during a crisis over the following 12 months.

Results showed that the rate of compulsory admissions was significantly lower in the peer worker PAD group, at 27% versus 39.9% in control participants, at an odds ratio of 0.58 (P = .007).

Participants in the intervention group had lower symptoms on the modified Colorado Symptom Score than usual care patients with an effect size of -0.20 (P = .03) and higher scores on the Empowerment Scale (effect size 0.30, P = .003).

Scores on the Recovery Assessment Scale were also significantly higher in the peer worker PAD group versus controls with an effect size of 0.44 (P < .001). There were no significant differences, however, in overall admission rates, the quality of the therapeutic alliance, or quality of life.
 

Putting patients in the driver’s seat

Commenting on the findings, Robert Dabney Jr., MA, MDiv, peer apprentice program manager at the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Chicago, said the study “tells us there are many benefits to completing a psychiatric advance directive, but perhaps the most powerful one is putting the person receiving mental health care in the driver’s seat of their own recovery.”

However, he noted that “many people living with mental health conditions don’t know the option exists to decide on their treatment plan in advance of a crisis.”

“This is where peer support specialists can come in. Having a peer who has been through similar experiences and can guide you through the process is as comforting as it is empowering. I have witnessed and experienced firsthand the power of peer support,” he said.

“It’s my personal hope and the goal of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance to empower more people to either become peer support specialists or seek out peer support services, because we know it improves and even saves lives,” Mr. Dabney added.

Virginia A. Brown, PhD, department of psychiatry & behavioral sciences, University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, noted there are huge differences between the health care systems in France and the United States.

She explained that two of the greatest barriers to PADs in the United States is that until 2016, filling one out was not billable and that “practitioners don’t know anything about advanced care plans.”

Dr. Brown said her own work shows that individuals who support patients during a crisis believe it would be “really helpful if we had some kind of document that we could share with the health care system that says: ‘Hey, look, I’m the designated person to speak for this patient, they’ve identified me through a document.’ So, people were actually describing a need for this document but didn’t know that it existed.”

Another problem is that in the United States, hospitals operate in a “closed system” and cannot talk to an unrelated hospital or to the police department “to get information to those first responders during an emergency about who to talk to about their wishes and preferences.”

“There are a lot of hurdles that we’ve got to get over to make a more robust system that protects the autonomy of people who live with serious mental illness,” Dr. Brown said, as “losing capacity during a crisis is time-limited, and it requires us to respond to it as a medical emergency.”

The study was supported by an institutional grant from the French 2017 National Program of Health Services Research. The Clinical Research Direction of Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille sponsored the trial. Dr. Tinland declares grants from the French Ministry of Health Directorate General of Health Care Services during the conduct of the study.

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