PTSD

Open a magazine or turn on the radio and you are likely to hear someone extolling the benefits of mindfulness for any number of purposes, conditions, or age groups. Businesses, schools, and health care organizations are incorporating mindfulness techniques to boost employee, student, and patient well-being and engagement, as well as to help employers, teachers, and providers to thrive. In this two-part series, part 1 will attempt to distill some of the fundamentals with regard to the following questions: 1. What is mindfulness? 2. What is the evidence for mindfulness, particularly in youth? and 3. How would you apply mindfulness techniques in your office setting?

Mindfulness was largely brought into the mainstream health care world by Jon Kabat-Zinn, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester. Drawing on Buddhist traditions, he created a secularized version of meditative and movement techniques used for thousands of years to promote healthy living. A growing evidence base showed that these practices, combined in a formal curriculum dubbed mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), could alleviate symptoms and distress in conditions as diverse as chronic pain, psoriasis, and anxiety. This has spawned numerous research programs and spin-offs, and remains a foundational approach to utilizing mindfulness in medical care. Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s definition of the term is thus worth noting – mindfulness is “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”¹ Put simply, mindfulness means having your mind and your body in the same place at the same time. If your mind is wandering to what happened yesterday or planning for what might happen later today, then your mind and body are not in the same time. If your mind is thinking about what is going on at home while you are at work, or what your friends are doing, your mind and body are not in the same place.

Dr. Rosenfeld is an assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He said he has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).

2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):822-48.

3. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1982 Apr;4(1):33-47.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 1992 Jul;149(7):936-43.

5. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;31(6):1041-56.

6. Neuroreport. 2005 Nov 28;16(17):1893-7.

7. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Mar;5(1):11-7.

8. Neuroimage. 2009 Apr 15;45(3):672-8.

9. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Jan 30;191(1):36-43.

10. Pediatrics. 2016 Jan;137(1):e20152532.

11. J Atten Disord. 2008 May;11(6):737-46.

12. J Child Fam Stud. 2012 Oct;21(5):775-87.

13. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Oct;77(5):855-66.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jul 1;80(1):53-61.

Open a magazine or turn on the radio and you are likely to hear someone extolling the benefits of mindfulness for any number of purposes, conditions, or age groups. Businesses, schools, and health care organizations are incorporating mindfulness techniques to boost employee, student, and patient well-being and engagement, as well as to help employers, teachers, and providers to thrive. In this two-part series, part 1 will attempt to distill some of the fundamentals with regard to the following questions: 1. What is mindfulness? 2. What is the evidence for mindfulness, particularly in youth? and 3. How would you apply mindfulness techniques in your office setting?

Mindfulness was largely brought into the mainstream health care world by Jon Kabat-Zinn, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester. Drawing on Buddhist traditions, he created a secularized version of meditative and movement techniques used for thousands of years to promote healthy living. A growing evidence base showed that these practices, combined in a formal curriculum dubbed mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), could alleviate symptoms and distress in conditions as diverse as chronic pain, psoriasis, and anxiety. This has spawned numerous research programs and spin-offs, and remains a foundational approach to utilizing mindfulness in medical care. Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s definition of the term is thus worth noting – mindfulness is “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”¹ Put simply, mindfulness means having your mind and your body in the same place at the same time. If your mind is wandering to what happened yesterday or planning for what might happen later today, then your mind and body are not in the same time. If your mind is thinking about what is going on at home while you are at work, or what your friends are doing, your mind and body are not in the same place.

Dr. Rosenfeld is an assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He said he has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).

2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):822-48.

3. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1982 Apr;4(1):33-47.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 1992 Jul;149(7):936-43.

5. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;31(6):1041-56.

6. Neuroreport. 2005 Nov 28;16(17):1893-7.

7. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Mar;5(1):11-7.

8. Neuroimage. 2009 Apr 15;45(3):672-8.

9. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Jan 30;191(1):36-43.

10. Pediatrics. 2016 Jan;137(1):e20152532.

11. J Atten Disord. 2008 May;11(6):737-46.

12. J Child Fam Stud. 2012 Oct;21(5):775-87.

13. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Oct;77(5):855-66.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jul 1;80(1):53-61.

Open a magazine or turn on the radio and you are likely to hear someone extolling the benefits of mindfulness for any number of purposes, conditions, or age groups. Businesses, schools, and health care organizations are incorporating mindfulness techniques to boost employee, student, and patient well-being and engagement, as well as to help employers, teachers, and providers to thrive. In this two-part series, part 1 will attempt to distill some of the fundamentals with regard to the following questions: 1. What is mindfulness? 2. What is the evidence for mindfulness, particularly in youth? and 3. How would you apply mindfulness techniques in your office setting?

Mindfulness was largely brought into the mainstream health care world by Jon Kabat-Zinn, PhD, of the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, Worcester. Drawing on Buddhist traditions, he created a secularized version of meditative and movement techniques used for thousands of years to promote healthy living. A growing evidence base showed that these practices, combined in a formal curriculum dubbed mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), could alleviate symptoms and distress in conditions as diverse as chronic pain, psoriasis, and anxiety. This has spawned numerous research programs and spin-offs, and remains a foundational approach to utilizing mindfulness in medical care. Dr. Kabat-Zinn’s definition of the term is thus worth noting – mindfulness is “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”¹ Put simply, mindfulness means having your mind and your body in the same place at the same time. If your mind is wandering to what happened yesterday or planning for what might happen later today, then your mind and body are not in the same time. If your mind is thinking about what is going on at home while you are at work, or what your friends are doing, your mind and body are not in the same place.

Dr. Rosenfeld is an assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center, Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He said he has no relevant disclosures.

References

1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).

2. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Apr;84(4):822-48.

3. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 1982 Apr;4(1):33-47.

4. Am J Psychiatry. 1992 Jul;149(7):936-43.

5. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Aug;31(6):1041-56.

6. Neuroreport. 2005 Nov 28;16(17):1893-7.

7. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2010 Mar;5(1):11-7.

8. Neuroimage. 2009 Apr 15;45(3):672-8.

9. Psychiatry Res. 2011 Jan 30;191(1):36-43.

10. Pediatrics. 2016 Jan;137(1):e20152532.

11. J Atten Disord. 2008 May;11(6):737-46.

12. J Child Fam Stud. 2012 Oct;21(5):775-87.

13. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2009 Oct;77(5):855-66.

14. Biol Psychiatry. 2016 Jul 1;80(1):53-61.

In this follow-up to last month’s column on mindfulness, in which the evidence base makes a compelling argument for incorporating mindfulness into our list of healthy practices for youth brain development, the challenge of implementing mindfulness “prescriptions” in practice is considered in more depth. As a reminder, a working definition of mindfulness was offered as, “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”¹

An important piece of prescribing, either pharmaceuticals or health-promoting practices, is sharing the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the recommended treatment. Last month’s article considered the potential benefits of cultivating a mindfulness practice. Few risks have been well-documented, particularly in the pediatric population. While some case reports describe adults having profoundly disturbing emotional reactions,these are in the context of intensive meditation experiences (think 10-day silent retreat).² While there is not evidence of harm in youth, the lesson to be learned from adult experiences may be to consult with an advanced teacher if a patient chooses to become intensely involved in any meditative practice.

1. Show me how you breathe. Now let’s practice belly (abdominal/diaphragmatic) breathing.
2. Move both hands to your belly. Imagine you are breathing behind your belly button. Feel your belly rise like a balloon.
3. As you breathe out, feel your belly drop as you let air out.
4. Bonus: Now breathe through your nose only as you continue belly breathing. Next, notice your belly rising and falling without placing your hands on it.

In a physical exam, the following might work: When you place your stethoscope on the chest and back to auscultate the lungs, instruct the child to “place a hand on your belly and take a deep breath into your belly button so that your hand moves out. Keep taking slow, deep belly breaths while I listen.”

This breathing technique activates the parasympathetic nervous system, quelling the fight-or-flight response that may contribute to anxiety, aggressive reactivity, and interfere with sleep. Prescribing five of these belly breaths before bedtime is a good beginning, increasing frequency and duration over time as the practice becomes routine, then adding the “bonus” techniques. Introducing abdominal breathing also makes a good opportunity to ask the child about sources of stress in their lives.

For the distracted or stressed-out youth, focus is key. Those children who seem to be always multitasking or never sit still may benefit from cultivating a focus practice. It also may help still the mind before bedtime. A mindfulness prescription for focus is as follows:

1. The rays of the sun are much more powerful when they are brought into focus. Just like building a muscle, focus can be built up to be stronger. Let’s practice focusing.
2. As you breathe in, count slowly to 5, raising one finger for each count. As you breathe out, count down to 0, lowering each finger.
3. Notice when you get distracted during the counting. Exercise your focus by coming back to counting your breath.
4. Let your hands rest in your lap. Then, move to counting silently in your head.

Alternative options for focus objects include watching the secondhand on a clock, balancing a peacock feather on a fingertip, listening to a bell or chime until it can no longer be heard, watching a sand timer until every grain falls.

In a physical exam, the following might work: During the neurologic exam for cranial nerves (eye movements), direct the child to focus on your finger. Hold it still for 10 seconds, gently reminding them to keep their focus on your finger if needed. Then, as you move to each quadrant, move slowly and stay in each quadrant for 5 seconds. Encourage them to “keep your focus on my finger.”

After practicing a focus exercise, inquire about the patient’s focus during school, homework, and activities. Suggest making the focused breathing, or an alternative focus activity, part of the daily routine. Parents are encouraged to participate alongside their children.

Depending on the amount of time you have in the visit, your mindfulness intervention may simply be how you conduct the physical exam. With more time or a child or family who seems to have an indication for prescribing mindfulness (stress, anxiety, inattention, insomnia, etc.), a more didactic approach toward mindfulness techniques accompanied by a specific prescription may be in order. Developmentally, clinicians in our practice have found that hands-on activities and games can help involve younger children, while teens can get into one of the apps developed to facilitate mindful practices. (See Online resources.) Diagnostically, more hyperactive or distractible children may mesh better with movement-based practices. Depressed or anxious children may enjoy quieter activities or benefit from small incentives to increase motivation. Children with traumatic histories may benefit from a slow pace, keeping their eyes open and looking at the floor rather than eyes closed and avoiding physical contact initially.

Methods of meditation and mindfulness exist in most every philosophical and religious tradition, but the neuroscientific value of these practices is a more recent take on these wisdom traditions. As we follow the growing research literature on mindfulness, consider incorporating this “new” prescription into your toolbox of healthy practices for the developing brain.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center and the university’s Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He reported no relevant disclosures. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Online resources:

• A Sesame Street video on belly breathing (for younger children): “Belly Breathe” with Elmo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mZbzDOpylA.
• Card decks: Growing Mindful: Mindfulness Practices for All Ages; Be Mindful Card Deck for Teens; Yoga 4 Classrooms Activity Card Deck.
• Apps: Smiling Mind (differentiated by age); Calm; Breathe; Breathe2Relax; Insight Timer; Grow (mindfulness for teens).
• Props: peacock feathers; sand timers; clock with secondhand; Tibetan singing bell or other; Hoberman spheres (“breathing balls”) to visualize belly breathing.

References

1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).

2. Rocha, Tomas. “The Dark Knight of the Soul.” The Atlantic. June 25, 2014.
 

In this follow-up to last month’s column on mindfulness, in which the evidence base makes a compelling argument for incorporating mindfulness into our list of healthy practices for youth brain development, the challenge of implementing mindfulness “prescriptions” in practice is considered in more depth. As a reminder, a working definition of mindfulness was offered as, “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”¹

An important piece of prescribing, either pharmaceuticals or health-promoting practices, is sharing the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the recommended treatment. Last month’s article considered the potential benefits of cultivating a mindfulness practice. Few risks have been well-documented, particularly in the pediatric population. While some case reports describe adults having profoundly disturbing emotional reactions,these are in the context of intensive meditation experiences (think 10-day silent retreat).² While there is not evidence of harm in youth, the lesson to be learned from adult experiences may be to consult with an advanced teacher if a patient chooses to become intensely involved in any meditative practice.

1. Show me how you breathe. Now let’s practice belly (abdominal/diaphragmatic) breathing.
2. Move both hands to your belly. Imagine you are breathing behind your belly button. Feel your belly rise like a balloon.
3. As you breathe out, feel your belly drop as you let air out.
4. Bonus: Now breathe through your nose only as you continue belly breathing. Next, notice your belly rising and falling without placing your hands on it.

In a physical exam, the following might work: When you place your stethoscope on the chest and back to auscultate the lungs, instruct the child to “place a hand on your belly and take a deep breath into your belly button so that your hand moves out. Keep taking slow, deep belly breaths while I listen.”

This breathing technique activates the parasympathetic nervous system, quelling the fight-or-flight response that may contribute to anxiety, aggressive reactivity, and interfere with sleep. Prescribing five of these belly breaths before bedtime is a good beginning, increasing frequency and duration over time as the practice becomes routine, then adding the “bonus” techniques. Introducing abdominal breathing also makes a good opportunity to ask the child about sources of stress in their lives.

For the distracted or stressed-out youth, focus is key. Those children who seem to be always multitasking or never sit still may benefit from cultivating a focus practice. It also may help still the mind before bedtime. A mindfulness prescription for focus is as follows:

1. The rays of the sun are much more powerful when they are brought into focus. Just like building a muscle, focus can be built up to be stronger. Let’s practice focusing.
2. As you breathe in, count slowly to 5, raising one finger for each count. As you breathe out, count down to 0, lowering each finger.
3. Notice when you get distracted during the counting. Exercise your focus by coming back to counting your breath.
4. Let your hands rest in your lap. Then, move to counting silently in your head.

Alternative options for focus objects include watching the secondhand on a clock, balancing a peacock feather on a fingertip, listening to a bell or chime until it can no longer be heard, watching a sand timer until every grain falls.

In a physical exam, the following might work: During the neurologic exam for cranial nerves (eye movements), direct the child to focus on your finger. Hold it still for 10 seconds, gently reminding them to keep their focus on your finger if needed. Then, as you move to each quadrant, move slowly and stay in each quadrant for 5 seconds. Encourage them to “keep your focus on my finger.”

After practicing a focus exercise, inquire about the patient’s focus during school, homework, and activities. Suggest making the focused breathing, or an alternative focus activity, part of the daily routine. Parents are encouraged to participate alongside their children.

Depending on the amount of time you have in the visit, your mindfulness intervention may simply be how you conduct the physical exam. With more time or a child or family who seems to have an indication for prescribing mindfulness (stress, anxiety, inattention, insomnia, etc.), a more didactic approach toward mindfulness techniques accompanied by a specific prescription may be in order. Developmentally, clinicians in our practice have found that hands-on activities and games can help involve younger children, while teens can get into one of the apps developed to facilitate mindful practices. (See Online resources.) Diagnostically, more hyperactive or distractible children may mesh better with movement-based practices. Depressed or anxious children may enjoy quieter activities or benefit from small incentives to increase motivation. Children with traumatic histories may benefit from a slow pace, keeping their eyes open and looking at the floor rather than eyes closed and avoiding physical contact initially.

Methods of meditation and mindfulness exist in most every philosophical and religious tradition, but the neuroscientific value of these practices is a more recent take on these wisdom traditions. As we follow the growing research literature on mindfulness, consider incorporating this “new” prescription into your toolbox of healthy practices for the developing brain.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center and the university’s Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He reported no relevant disclosures. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Online resources:

• A Sesame Street video on belly breathing (for younger children): “Belly Breathe” with Elmo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mZbzDOpylA.
• Card decks: Growing Mindful: Mindfulness Practices for All Ages; Be Mindful Card Deck for Teens; Yoga 4 Classrooms Activity Card Deck.
• Apps: Smiling Mind (differentiated by age); Calm; Breathe; Breathe2Relax; Insight Timer; Grow (mindfulness for teens).
• Props: peacock feathers; sand timers; clock with secondhand; Tibetan singing bell or other; Hoberman spheres (“breathing balls”) to visualize belly breathing.

References

1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).

2. Rocha, Tomas. “The Dark Knight of the Soul.” The Atlantic. June 25, 2014.
 

In this follow-up to last month’s column on mindfulness, in which the evidence base makes a compelling argument for incorporating mindfulness into our list of healthy practices for youth brain development, the challenge of implementing mindfulness “prescriptions” in practice is considered in more depth. As a reminder, a working definition of mindfulness was offered as, “the awareness that arises by paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.”¹

An important piece of prescribing, either pharmaceuticals or health-promoting practices, is sharing the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the recommended treatment. Last month’s article considered the potential benefits of cultivating a mindfulness practice. Few risks have been well-documented, particularly in the pediatric population. While some case reports describe adults having profoundly disturbing emotional reactions,these are in the context of intensive meditation experiences (think 10-day silent retreat).² While there is not evidence of harm in youth, the lesson to be learned from adult experiences may be to consult with an advanced teacher if a patient chooses to become intensely involved in any meditative practice.

1. Show me how you breathe. Now let’s practice belly (abdominal/diaphragmatic) breathing.
2. Move both hands to your belly. Imagine you are breathing behind your belly button. Feel your belly rise like a balloon.
3. As you breathe out, feel your belly drop as you let air out.
4. Bonus: Now breathe through your nose only as you continue belly breathing. Next, notice your belly rising and falling without placing your hands on it.

In a physical exam, the following might work: When you place your stethoscope on the chest and back to auscultate the lungs, instruct the child to “place a hand on your belly and take a deep breath into your belly button so that your hand moves out. Keep taking slow, deep belly breaths while I listen.”

This breathing technique activates the parasympathetic nervous system, quelling the fight-or-flight response that may contribute to anxiety, aggressive reactivity, and interfere with sleep. Prescribing five of these belly breaths before bedtime is a good beginning, increasing frequency and duration over time as the practice becomes routine, then adding the “bonus” techniques. Introducing abdominal breathing also makes a good opportunity to ask the child about sources of stress in their lives.

For the distracted or stressed-out youth, focus is key. Those children who seem to be always multitasking or never sit still may benefit from cultivating a focus practice. It also may help still the mind before bedtime. A mindfulness prescription for focus is as follows:

1. The rays of the sun are much more powerful when they are brought into focus. Just like building a muscle, focus can be built up to be stronger. Let’s practice focusing.
2. As you breathe in, count slowly to 5, raising one finger for each count. As you breathe out, count down to 0, lowering each finger.
3. Notice when you get distracted during the counting. Exercise your focus by coming back to counting your breath.
4. Let your hands rest in your lap. Then, move to counting silently in your head.

Alternative options for focus objects include watching the secondhand on a clock, balancing a peacock feather on a fingertip, listening to a bell or chime until it can no longer be heard, watching a sand timer until every grain falls.

In a physical exam, the following might work: During the neurologic exam for cranial nerves (eye movements), direct the child to focus on your finger. Hold it still for 10 seconds, gently reminding them to keep their focus on your finger if needed. Then, as you move to each quadrant, move slowly and stay in each quadrant for 5 seconds. Encourage them to “keep your focus on my finger.”

After practicing a focus exercise, inquire about the patient’s focus during school, homework, and activities. Suggest making the focused breathing, or an alternative focus activity, part of the daily routine. Parents are encouraged to participate alongside their children.

Depending on the amount of time you have in the visit, your mindfulness intervention may simply be how you conduct the physical exam. With more time or a child or family who seems to have an indication for prescribing mindfulness (stress, anxiety, inattention, insomnia, etc.), a more didactic approach toward mindfulness techniques accompanied by a specific prescription may be in order. Developmentally, clinicians in our practice have found that hands-on activities and games can help involve younger children, while teens can get into one of the apps developed to facilitate mindful practices. (See Online resources.) Diagnostically, more hyperactive or distractible children may mesh better with movement-based practices. Depressed or anxious children may enjoy quieter activities or benefit from small incentives to increase motivation. Children with traumatic histories may benefit from a slow pace, keeping their eyes open and looking at the floor rather than eyes closed and avoiding physical contact initially.

Methods of meditation and mindfulness exist in most every philosophical and religious tradition, but the neuroscientific value of these practices is a more recent take on these wisdom traditions. As we follow the growing research literature on mindfulness, consider incorporating this “new” prescription into your toolbox of healthy practices for the developing brain.

Dr. Rosenfeld is assistant professor in the departments of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Vermont Medical Center and the university’s Robert Larner College of Medicine, Burlington. He reported no relevant disclosures. Email him at pdnews@frontlinemedcom.com.

Online resources:

• A Sesame Street video on belly breathing (for younger children): “Belly Breathe” with Elmo at www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mZbzDOpylA.
• Card decks: Growing Mindful: Mindfulness Practices for All Ages; Be Mindful Card Deck for Teens; Yoga 4 Classrooms Activity Card Deck.
• Apps: Smiling Mind (differentiated by age); Calm; Breathe; Breathe2Relax; Insight Timer; Grow (mindfulness for teens).
• Props: peacock feathers; sand timers; clock with secondhand; Tibetan singing bell or other; Hoberman spheres (“breathing balls”) to visualize belly breathing.

References

1. Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness. (New York: Bantam Books, Penguin Random House, 2013).

2. Rocha, Tomas. “The Dark Knight of the Soul.” The Atlantic. June 25, 2014.
 

CASE Suicidal while asleep

Mr. R, age 28, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is awoken by his wife to check on their daughter approximately 30 minutes after he takes his nightly regimen of zolpidem, 10 mg, melatonin, 6 mg, and hydroxyzine, 20 mg. When Mr. R returns to the bedroom, he appears to be confused. Mr. R grabs an unloaded gun from under the mattress, puts it in his mouth, and pulls the trigger. Then Mr. R holds the gun to his head and pulls the trigger while saying that his wife and children will be better off without him. His wife takes the gun away, but he grabs another gun from his gun box and loads it. His wife convinces him to remove the ammunition; however, Mr. R gets the other unloaded gun and pulls the trigger on himself again. After his wife takes this gun away, he tries cutting himself with a pocket­knife, causing superficial cuts. Eventually, Mr. R goes back to bed. He does not remember these events in the morning.

What increased the likelihood of parasomnia in Mr. R?
a) high zolpidem dosage
b) concomitant use of other sedating agents
c) sleep deprivation
d) dehydration

[polldaddy:9712545]

The authors’ observations

Parasomnias are sleep-wake transition disorders classified by the sleep stage from which they arise, either NREM or rapid eye movement (REM). NREM parasomnias could result from incomplete awakening from NREM sleep, typically in Stage N3 (slow-wave) sleep.¹ DSM-5 describes NREM parasomnias as arousal disorders in which the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of substance; substance/medication-induced sleep disorder, parasomnia type, is when the disturbance can be attributed to a substance.² The latter also can occur during REM sleep.

NREM parasomnias are characterized by abnormal behaviors during sleep with significant harm potential.³ Somnambulism or sleepwalking and sleep terrors are the 2 types of NREM parasomnias in DSM-5. Sleepwalking could involve complex behaviors, including:

• eating
• talking
• cooking
• shopping
• driving
• sexual activity.

Zolpidem, a benzodiazepine receptor agonist, is a preferred hypnotic agent for insomnia because of its low risk for abuse and daytime sedation.⁴ However, the drug has been associated with NREM parasomnias, namely somnambulism or sleepwalking, and its variants including sleep-driving, sleep-related eating disorder, and rarely sexsomnia (sleep-sex), with anterograde amnesia for the event.⁵ Suicidal behavior that occurs while the patient is asleep with next-day amnesia is another variant of somnambulism. There are several reports of suicidal behavior during sleep,^6,7 but to our knowledge, there are only 2 previous cases implicating zolpidem as the cause:

• Gibson et al⁸ described a 49-year-old man who sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head while asleep. He just had started taking zolpidem, and in the weeks before the incident he had several episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-eating. He had consumed alcohol the night of the self-inflicted gunshot wound, but had no other psychiatric history.
• Chopra et al⁴ described a 37-year-old man, with no prior episodes of sleepwalking or associated complex behaviors, who was taking zolpidem, 10 mg/d, for chronic insomnia. He shot a gun in the basement of his home, and then held the loaded gun to his neck while asleep. The authors attributed the event to zolpidem in combination with other predisposing factors, including dehydration after intense exercise and alcohol use. The authors categorized this type of event as “para-suicidal amnestic behavior,” although “sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior” might be a better term for this type of parasomnia because of its occurrence during sleep and non-deliberate nature.

In another case report, a 27-year-old man took additional zolpidem after he did not experience desired sedative effects from an initial 20 mg.⁹ Because the patient remembered the suicidal thoughts, the authors believed that the patient attempted suicide while under the influence of zolpidem. The authors did not believe the incident to be sleep-related suicidal behavior, because it was uncertain if he attempted suicide while asleep.

Mr. R does not remember the events his wife witnessed while he was asleep. To our knowledge, Mr. R’s case is the first sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior case resulting from zolpidem, 10 mg/d, without concurrent alcohol use in an adult male veteran with PTSD and no suicidal ideation while awake.

HISTORY Further details revealed

Mr. R says that in the days leading to the incident he was not sleep-deprived and was getting at least 6 hours of restful sleep every night. He had been taking zolpidem every night. He has no childhood or family history of NREM parasomnias. He says he did not engage in intense exercise that evening or have a fever the night of the incident and has abstained from alcohol for 2 years.

His wife says that after he took zolpidem, when he was woken up, “He was not there; his eyes were glazed and glossy, and it’s like he was in another world,” and his speech and behavior were bizarre. She also reports that his eyes were open when he engaged in this behavior that appeared suicidal.

Three months before the incident, Mr. R had reported nightmares with dream enactment behaviors, hypervigilance on awakening and during the daytime, irritability, and anxious and depressed mood with neurovegetative symptoms, and was referred to our clinic for medication management. He also reported no prior or current manic or psychotic symptoms, denied suicidal thoughts, and had no history of suicide attempts. Mr. R’s medication regimen included tramadol, 400 mg/d, for chronic knee pain; fluoxetine, 60 mg/d, for depression and PTSD; and propranolol ER, 60 mg/d, and propranolol, 10 mg/d as needed, for anxiety. He was started on prazosin, 2 mg/d, titrated to 4 mg/d, for medication management of nightmares.

Mr. R also was referred to the sleep laboratory for a polysomnogram (PSG) because of reported loud snoring and witnessed apneas, especially because sleep apnea can cause nightmares and dream enactment behaviors. The PSG was negative for sleep apnea or excessive periodic limb movements of sleep, but showed increased electromyographic (EMG) activity during REM sleep, which was consistent with his report of dream enactment behaviors. Two months later, he reported improvement in nightmares and depression, but not in dream enactment behaviors. Because of prominent anxiety and irritability, he was started on gabapentin, 300 mg, 3 times a day.

What factor increases the risk of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines?
a) greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep
b) lesser degree of muscle relaxation
c) both a and b
d) none of the above

[polldaddy:9712556]

The authors’ observations

Factors that increase the likelihood of parasomnias include:

• zolpidem >10 mg at bedtime
• concomitant use of other CNS depressants, including sedative hypnotic agents and alcohol
• female sex
• not falling asleep immediately after taking zolpidem
• personal or family history of parasomnias
• living alone
• poor pill management
• presence of sleep disruptors such as sleep apnea and periodic limb movements of sleep.^1,4,5,10

Higher dosages of zolpidem (>10 mg/d) have been identified as the predictive risk factor.⁵ In the Chopra et al⁴ case report on sleep-related suicidal behavior related to zolpidem, 10 mg at bedtime, concomitant dehydration and alcohol use were implicated as facilitating factors. Dehydration could increase serum levels of zolpidem resulting in greater CNS effects. Alcohol use was implicated in the Gibson et al⁸ case report as well, and the patient had multiple episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-related eating.However, Mr. R was not dehydrated or using alcohol.

An interesting feature of Mr. R’s case is that he was taking fluoxetine. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 is involved in metabolizing zolpidem, and norfluoxetine, a metabolite of fluoxetine, inhibits CYP3A4. Although studies have not found pharmacokinetic interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, these studies did not investigate fluoxetine dosages >20 mg/d.¹¹ The inhibition of CYP enzymes by fluoxetine likely is dose-dependent,¹² and therefore concomitant administration of high-dosage fluoxetine (>20 mg/d) with zolpidem might result in higher serum levels of zolpidem.

Mr. R also was taking several sedating agents (gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, and tramadol). The concomitant use of these sedative-hypnotic agents could have increased his risk of parasomnia. A review of the literature did not reveal any reports of gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, or tramadol causing parasomnias. This observation, as well as the well-known role of zolpidem⁵ in etiopathogenesis of parasomnias, indicates that the pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed while asleep likely was a direct result of zolpidem use in presence of other facilitating factors. Gabapentin, which is known to increase the depth of sleep, was added to his regimen 1 month before his parasomnia episode. Therefore, gabapentin could have triggered parasomnia with zolpidem therapy.^1,13

Conditions that provoke repeated cortical arousals (eg, periodic limb movement disorder [PLMD] and sleep apnea) or increase depth or pressure of sleep (intense exercise in the evening, fever, sleep deprivation) are thought to be associated with NREM parasomnias.^1-4 However, Mr. R underwent in-laboratory PSG and tested negative for major cortical arousal-inducing conditions, such as PLMD and sleep apnea.
 

Some other sleep disruptors likely were involved in Mr. R’s case. Auditory and tactile stimuli are known to cause cortical arousals, with additive effect seen when these 2 stimuli are combined.^3,14 Additionally, these exogenous stimuli are known to trigger sleep-related violent parasomnias.¹⁵ Mr. R displayed this behavior after his wife woke him up. The auditory stimulus of his wife’s voice and/or tactile stimulus involved in the act of waking Mr. R likely played a role in the suicidal and violent nature of his NREM parasomnia.

[polldaddy:9712581]

The authors’ observations

In general, the mechanisms by which zolpidem causes NREM parasomnias are not completely understood. The sedation-related amnestic properties of zolpidem might explain some of these behaviors. Patients could perform these behaviors after waking and have subsequent amnesia.⁴ There is greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines also cause muscle relaxation while the motor system remains relatively more active during sleep with zolpidem because of its selectivity for α-1 subunit of gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. These factors might increase the likelihood of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines.⁴

Types of parasomnias

According to DSM-5, there are 2 categories of parasomnias based on the sleep stage from which a parasomnia emerges.² REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) refers to complex motor and/or vocalizations during REM sleep, accompanied by increased EMG activity during REM sleep (Table).^2,3

The pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed likely was NREM parasomnia because it occurred in the first third of the night with his eyes open and impaired recall after the event. Interestingly, Mr. R had RBD in addition to the NREM parasomnia likely caused by zolpidem. This is evident from Mr. R’s frequent dream enactment behaviors, such as kicking, thrashing, and punching during sleep, along with increased EMG activity during REM sleep as recorded on the PSG.¹⁰ The presence of RBD could be explained by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (fluoxetine) use, and comorbidity with PTSD.^2,16

Management of parasomnias

Initial management of parasomnias involves decreasing the risk of parasomnia-related injury. Suggested safety measures include:

• sleeping away from windows
• sleeping in a sleeping bag
• sleeping on a lower floor
• locking windows and doors
• removing potentially dangerous objects from the bedroom
• putting gates across stairwells
• installing bells or alarms on door knobs.¹⁵

Removing access to firearms or other weapons such as knives is of utmost importance especially with patients who have easy access during wakefulness. If removing weapons is not feasible, consider disarming, securing, or locking them.¹⁵ These considerations are relevant to veterans with PTSD because of the high prevalence of symptoms, including depression, insomnia, and pain, which require sedating medications.¹⁷ A review of parasomnias among a large sample of psychiatric outpatients revealed that a variety of sedating medications, including antidepressants, can lead to NREM parasomnias.¹⁸ Therefore, exercise caution when prescribing sedating medications, especially in patients vulnerable to developing dangerous parasomnias, such as a veteran with PTSD and easy access to guns.¹⁹

TREATMENT Zolpidem stopped

Mr. R immediately stops taking zolpidem because he is aware of its association with abnormal behaviors during sleep, and his wife removes his access to firearms and knives at night. Because of his history of clinical benefit and no history of parasomnias with mirtazapine, Mr. R is started on mirtazapine for insomnia that previously was treated with zolpidem, and residual depression. Six months after discontinuing zolpidem, he does not experience NREM parasomnias, and there are no changes in his dream enactment behaviors.

Summing up

Zolpidem therapy could be associated with unusual variants of NREM parasomnia, sleepwalking type; sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior is one such variant. Several factors could play a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia with zolpidem therapy. In Mr. R’s case, the pharmacokinetic drug interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, as well as concomitant use of several sedating agents could have played a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia, with audio-tactile stimuli contributing to the violent and suicidal nature of the parasomnia. Exercise caution when using CYP enzyme inhibitors, such as fluoxetine and paroxetine, in combination with zolpidem. Knowledge of the potential interaction between zolpidem and fluoxetine is important because anti­depressants and hypnotics are commonly co-prescribed because insomnia often is comorbid with other psychiatric disorders.

In veterans with PTSD who do not have suicidal ideations while awake, life-threatening non-intentional behavior is a risk because of easy access to guns or other weapons. Sedative-hypnotic medications commonly are prescribed to patients with PTSD. Exercise caution when using hypnotic agents such as zolpidem, and consider sleep aids with a lower risk of parasomnias (based on the author’s experience, trazodone, mirtazapine, melatonin, and gabapentin) when possible. Non-pharmacologic treatments of insomnia, such as sleep hygiene education and, more importantly, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, are preferred. If a patient is already taking zolpidem, nightly dosage should not be >10 mg. Polypharmacy with other sedating medications should be avoided when possible and both exogenous (noise, pets) and endogenous sleep disruptors (sleep apnea, PLMD) should be addressed. Advise the patient to avoid alcohol and remove firearms and other potential weapons. Discontinue zolpidem if the patient develops sleep-related abnormal behavior because of its potential to take on violent forms.

CASE Suicidal while asleep

Mr. R, age 28, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is awoken by his wife to check on their daughter approximately 30 minutes after he takes his nightly regimen of zolpidem, 10 mg, melatonin, 6 mg, and hydroxyzine, 20 mg. When Mr. R returns to the bedroom, he appears to be confused. Mr. R grabs an unloaded gun from under the mattress, puts it in his mouth, and pulls the trigger. Then Mr. R holds the gun to his head and pulls the trigger while saying that his wife and children will be better off without him. His wife takes the gun away, but he grabs another gun from his gun box and loads it. His wife convinces him to remove the ammunition; however, Mr. R gets the other unloaded gun and pulls the trigger on himself again. After his wife takes this gun away, he tries cutting himself with a pocket­knife, causing superficial cuts. Eventually, Mr. R goes back to bed. He does not remember these events in the morning.

What increased the likelihood of parasomnia in Mr. R?
a) high zolpidem dosage
b) concomitant use of other sedating agents
c) sleep deprivation
d) dehydration

[polldaddy:9712545]

The authors’ observations

Parasomnias are sleep-wake transition disorders classified by the sleep stage from which they arise, either NREM or rapid eye movement (REM). NREM parasomnias could result from incomplete awakening from NREM sleep, typically in Stage N3 (slow-wave) sleep.¹ DSM-5 describes NREM parasomnias as arousal disorders in which the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of substance; substance/medication-induced sleep disorder, parasomnia type, is when the disturbance can be attributed to a substance.² The latter also can occur during REM sleep.

NREM parasomnias are characterized by abnormal behaviors during sleep with significant harm potential.³ Somnambulism or sleepwalking and sleep terrors are the 2 types of NREM parasomnias in DSM-5. Sleepwalking could involve complex behaviors, including:

• eating
• talking
• cooking
• shopping
• driving
• sexual activity.

Zolpidem, a benzodiazepine receptor agonist, is a preferred hypnotic agent for insomnia because of its low risk for abuse and daytime sedation.⁴ However, the drug has been associated with NREM parasomnias, namely somnambulism or sleepwalking, and its variants including sleep-driving, sleep-related eating disorder, and rarely sexsomnia (sleep-sex), with anterograde amnesia for the event.⁵ Suicidal behavior that occurs while the patient is asleep with next-day amnesia is another variant of somnambulism. There are several reports of suicidal behavior during sleep,^6,7 but to our knowledge, there are only 2 previous cases implicating zolpidem as the cause:

• Gibson et al⁸ described a 49-year-old man who sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head while asleep. He just had started taking zolpidem, and in the weeks before the incident he had several episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-eating. He had consumed alcohol the night of the self-inflicted gunshot wound, but had no other psychiatric history.
• Chopra et al⁴ described a 37-year-old man, with no prior episodes of sleepwalking or associated complex behaviors, who was taking zolpidem, 10 mg/d, for chronic insomnia. He shot a gun in the basement of his home, and then held the loaded gun to his neck while asleep. The authors attributed the event to zolpidem in combination with other predisposing factors, including dehydration after intense exercise and alcohol use. The authors categorized this type of event as “para-suicidal amnestic behavior,” although “sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior” might be a better term for this type of parasomnia because of its occurrence during sleep and non-deliberate nature.

In another case report, a 27-year-old man took additional zolpidem after he did not experience desired sedative effects from an initial 20 mg.⁹ Because the patient remembered the suicidal thoughts, the authors believed that the patient attempted suicide while under the influence of zolpidem. The authors did not believe the incident to be sleep-related suicidal behavior, because it was uncertain if he attempted suicide while asleep.

Mr. R does not remember the events his wife witnessed while he was asleep. To our knowledge, Mr. R’s case is the first sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior case resulting from zolpidem, 10 mg/d, without concurrent alcohol use in an adult male veteran with PTSD and no suicidal ideation while awake.

HISTORY Further details revealed

Mr. R says that in the days leading to the incident he was not sleep-deprived and was getting at least 6 hours of restful sleep every night. He had been taking zolpidem every night. He has no childhood or family history of NREM parasomnias. He says he did not engage in intense exercise that evening or have a fever the night of the incident and has abstained from alcohol for 2 years.

His wife says that after he took zolpidem, when he was woken up, “He was not there; his eyes were glazed and glossy, and it’s like he was in another world,” and his speech and behavior were bizarre. She also reports that his eyes were open when he engaged in this behavior that appeared suicidal.

Three months before the incident, Mr. R had reported nightmares with dream enactment behaviors, hypervigilance on awakening and during the daytime, irritability, and anxious and depressed mood with neurovegetative symptoms, and was referred to our clinic for medication management. He also reported no prior or current manic or psychotic symptoms, denied suicidal thoughts, and had no history of suicide attempts. Mr. R’s medication regimen included tramadol, 400 mg/d, for chronic knee pain; fluoxetine, 60 mg/d, for depression and PTSD; and propranolol ER, 60 mg/d, and propranolol, 10 mg/d as needed, for anxiety. He was started on prazosin, 2 mg/d, titrated to 4 mg/d, for medication management of nightmares.

Mr. R also was referred to the sleep laboratory for a polysomnogram (PSG) because of reported loud snoring and witnessed apneas, especially because sleep apnea can cause nightmares and dream enactment behaviors. The PSG was negative for sleep apnea or excessive periodic limb movements of sleep, but showed increased electromyographic (EMG) activity during REM sleep, which was consistent with his report of dream enactment behaviors. Two months later, he reported improvement in nightmares and depression, but not in dream enactment behaviors. Because of prominent anxiety and irritability, he was started on gabapentin, 300 mg, 3 times a day.

What factor increases the risk of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines?
a) greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep
b) lesser degree of muscle relaxation
c) both a and b
d) none of the above

[polldaddy:9712556]

The authors’ observations

Factors that increase the likelihood of parasomnias include:

• zolpidem >10 mg at bedtime
• concomitant use of other CNS depressants, including sedative hypnotic agents and alcohol
• female sex
• not falling asleep immediately after taking zolpidem
• personal or family history of parasomnias
• living alone
• poor pill management
• presence of sleep disruptors such as sleep apnea and periodic limb movements of sleep.^1,4,5,10

Higher dosages of zolpidem (>10 mg/d) have been identified as the predictive risk factor.⁵ In the Chopra et al⁴ case report on sleep-related suicidal behavior related to zolpidem, 10 mg at bedtime, concomitant dehydration and alcohol use were implicated as facilitating factors. Dehydration could increase serum levels of zolpidem resulting in greater CNS effects. Alcohol use was implicated in the Gibson et al⁸ case report as well, and the patient had multiple episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-related eating.However, Mr. R was not dehydrated or using alcohol.

An interesting feature of Mr. R’s case is that he was taking fluoxetine. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 is involved in metabolizing zolpidem, and norfluoxetine, a metabolite of fluoxetine, inhibits CYP3A4. Although studies have not found pharmacokinetic interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, these studies did not investigate fluoxetine dosages >20 mg/d.¹¹ The inhibition of CYP enzymes by fluoxetine likely is dose-dependent,¹² and therefore concomitant administration of high-dosage fluoxetine (>20 mg/d) with zolpidem might result in higher serum levels of zolpidem.

Mr. R also was taking several sedating agents (gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, and tramadol). The concomitant use of these sedative-hypnotic agents could have increased his risk of parasomnia. A review of the literature did not reveal any reports of gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, or tramadol causing parasomnias. This observation, as well as the well-known role of zolpidem⁵ in etiopathogenesis of parasomnias, indicates that the pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed while asleep likely was a direct result of zolpidem use in presence of other facilitating factors. Gabapentin, which is known to increase the depth of sleep, was added to his regimen 1 month before his parasomnia episode. Therefore, gabapentin could have triggered parasomnia with zolpidem therapy.^1,13

Conditions that provoke repeated cortical arousals (eg, periodic limb movement disorder [PLMD] and sleep apnea) or increase depth or pressure of sleep (intense exercise in the evening, fever, sleep deprivation) are thought to be associated with NREM parasomnias.^1-4 However, Mr. R underwent in-laboratory PSG and tested negative for major cortical arousal-inducing conditions, such as PLMD and sleep apnea.
 

Some other sleep disruptors likely were involved in Mr. R’s case. Auditory and tactile stimuli are known to cause cortical arousals, with additive effect seen when these 2 stimuli are combined.^3,14 Additionally, these exogenous stimuli are known to trigger sleep-related violent parasomnias.¹⁵ Mr. R displayed this behavior after his wife woke him up. The auditory stimulus of his wife’s voice and/or tactile stimulus involved in the act of waking Mr. R likely played a role in the suicidal and violent nature of his NREM parasomnia.

[polldaddy:9712581]

The authors’ observations

In general, the mechanisms by which zolpidem causes NREM parasomnias are not completely understood. The sedation-related amnestic properties of zolpidem might explain some of these behaviors. Patients could perform these behaviors after waking and have subsequent amnesia.⁴ There is greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines also cause muscle relaxation while the motor system remains relatively more active during sleep with zolpidem because of its selectivity for α-1 subunit of gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. These factors might increase the likelihood of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines.⁴

Types of parasomnias

According to DSM-5, there are 2 categories of parasomnias based on the sleep stage from which a parasomnia emerges.² REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) refers to complex motor and/or vocalizations during REM sleep, accompanied by increased EMG activity during REM sleep (Table).^2,3

The pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed likely was NREM parasomnia because it occurred in the first third of the night with his eyes open and impaired recall after the event. Interestingly, Mr. R had RBD in addition to the NREM parasomnia likely caused by zolpidem. This is evident from Mr. R’s frequent dream enactment behaviors, such as kicking, thrashing, and punching during sleep, along with increased EMG activity during REM sleep as recorded on the PSG.¹⁰ The presence of RBD could be explained by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (fluoxetine) use, and comorbidity with PTSD.^2,16

Management of parasomnias

Initial management of parasomnias involves decreasing the risk of parasomnia-related injury. Suggested safety measures include:

• sleeping away from windows
• sleeping in a sleeping bag
• sleeping on a lower floor
• locking windows and doors
• removing potentially dangerous objects from the bedroom
• putting gates across stairwells
• installing bells or alarms on door knobs.¹⁵

Removing access to firearms or other weapons such as knives is of utmost importance especially with patients who have easy access during wakefulness. If removing weapons is not feasible, consider disarming, securing, or locking them.¹⁵ These considerations are relevant to veterans with PTSD because of the high prevalence of symptoms, including depression, insomnia, and pain, which require sedating medications.¹⁷ A review of parasomnias among a large sample of psychiatric outpatients revealed that a variety of sedating medications, including antidepressants, can lead to NREM parasomnias.¹⁸ Therefore, exercise caution when prescribing sedating medications, especially in patients vulnerable to developing dangerous parasomnias, such as a veteran with PTSD and easy access to guns.¹⁹

TREATMENT Zolpidem stopped

Mr. R immediately stops taking zolpidem because he is aware of its association with abnormal behaviors during sleep, and his wife removes his access to firearms and knives at night. Because of his history of clinical benefit and no history of parasomnias with mirtazapine, Mr. R is started on mirtazapine for insomnia that previously was treated with zolpidem, and residual depression. Six months after discontinuing zolpidem, he does not experience NREM parasomnias, and there are no changes in his dream enactment behaviors.

Summing up

Zolpidem therapy could be associated with unusual variants of NREM parasomnia, sleepwalking type; sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior is one such variant. Several factors could play a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia with zolpidem therapy. In Mr. R’s case, the pharmacokinetic drug interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, as well as concomitant use of several sedating agents could have played a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia, with audio-tactile stimuli contributing to the violent and suicidal nature of the parasomnia. Exercise caution when using CYP enzyme inhibitors, such as fluoxetine and paroxetine, in combination with zolpidem. Knowledge of the potential interaction between zolpidem and fluoxetine is important because anti­depressants and hypnotics are commonly co-prescribed because insomnia often is comorbid with other psychiatric disorders.

In veterans with PTSD who do not have suicidal ideations while awake, life-threatening non-intentional behavior is a risk because of easy access to guns or other weapons. Sedative-hypnotic medications commonly are prescribed to patients with PTSD. Exercise caution when using hypnotic agents such as zolpidem, and consider sleep aids with a lower risk of parasomnias (based on the author’s experience, trazodone, mirtazapine, melatonin, and gabapentin) when possible. Non-pharmacologic treatments of insomnia, such as sleep hygiene education and, more importantly, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, are preferred. If a patient is already taking zolpidem, nightly dosage should not be >10 mg. Polypharmacy with other sedating medications should be avoided when possible and both exogenous (noise, pets) and endogenous sleep disruptors (sleep apnea, PLMD) should be addressed. Advise the patient to avoid alcohol and remove firearms and other potential weapons. Discontinue zolpidem if the patient develops sleep-related abnormal behavior because of its potential to take on violent forms.

CASE Suicidal while asleep

Mr. R, age 28, an Iraq and Afghanistan veteran with major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is awoken by his wife to check on their daughter approximately 30 minutes after he takes his nightly regimen of zolpidem, 10 mg, melatonin, 6 mg, and hydroxyzine, 20 mg. When Mr. R returns to the bedroom, he appears to be confused. Mr. R grabs an unloaded gun from under the mattress, puts it in his mouth, and pulls the trigger. Then Mr. R holds the gun to his head and pulls the trigger while saying that his wife and children will be better off without him. His wife takes the gun away, but he grabs another gun from his gun box and loads it. His wife convinces him to remove the ammunition; however, Mr. R gets the other unloaded gun and pulls the trigger on himself again. After his wife takes this gun away, he tries cutting himself with a pocket­knife, causing superficial cuts. Eventually, Mr. R goes back to bed. He does not remember these events in the morning.

What increased the likelihood of parasomnia in Mr. R?
a) high zolpidem dosage
b) concomitant use of other sedating agents
c) sleep deprivation
d) dehydration

[polldaddy:9712545]

The authors’ observations

Parasomnias are sleep-wake transition disorders classified by the sleep stage from which they arise, either NREM or rapid eye movement (REM). NREM parasomnias could result from incomplete awakening from NREM sleep, typically in Stage N3 (slow-wave) sleep.¹ DSM-5 describes NREM parasomnias as arousal disorders in which the disturbance is not attributable to the physiological effects of substance; substance/medication-induced sleep disorder, parasomnia type, is when the disturbance can be attributed to a substance.² The latter also can occur during REM sleep.

NREM parasomnias are characterized by abnormal behaviors during sleep with significant harm potential.³ Somnambulism or sleepwalking and sleep terrors are the 2 types of NREM parasomnias in DSM-5. Sleepwalking could involve complex behaviors, including:

• eating
• talking
• cooking
• shopping
• driving
• sexual activity.

Zolpidem, a benzodiazepine receptor agonist, is a preferred hypnotic agent for insomnia because of its low risk for abuse and daytime sedation.⁴ However, the drug has been associated with NREM parasomnias, namely somnambulism or sleepwalking, and its variants including sleep-driving, sleep-related eating disorder, and rarely sexsomnia (sleep-sex), with anterograde amnesia for the event.⁵ Suicidal behavior that occurs while the patient is asleep with next-day amnesia is another variant of somnambulism. There are several reports of suicidal behavior during sleep,^6,7 but to our knowledge, there are only 2 previous cases implicating zolpidem as the cause:

• Gibson et al⁸ described a 49-year-old man who sustained a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his head while asleep. He just had started taking zolpidem, and in the weeks before the incident he had several episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-eating. He had consumed alcohol the night of the self-inflicted gunshot wound, but had no other psychiatric history.
• Chopra et al⁴ described a 37-year-old man, with no prior episodes of sleepwalking or associated complex behaviors, who was taking zolpidem, 10 mg/d, for chronic insomnia. He shot a gun in the basement of his home, and then held the loaded gun to his neck while asleep. The authors attributed the event to zolpidem in combination with other predisposing factors, including dehydration after intense exercise and alcohol use. The authors categorized this type of event as “para-suicidal amnestic behavior,” although “sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior” might be a better term for this type of parasomnia because of its occurrence during sleep and non-deliberate nature.

In another case report, a 27-year-old man took additional zolpidem after he did not experience desired sedative effects from an initial 20 mg.⁹ Because the patient remembered the suicidal thoughts, the authors believed that the patient attempted suicide while under the influence of zolpidem. The authors did not believe the incident to be sleep-related suicidal behavior, because it was uncertain if he attempted suicide while asleep.

Mr. R does not remember the events his wife witnessed while he was asleep. To our knowledge, Mr. R’s case is the first sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior case resulting from zolpidem, 10 mg/d, without concurrent alcohol use in an adult male veteran with PTSD and no suicidal ideation while awake.

HISTORY Further details revealed

Mr. R says that in the days leading to the incident he was not sleep-deprived and was getting at least 6 hours of restful sleep every night. He had been taking zolpidem every night. He has no childhood or family history of NREM parasomnias. He says he did not engage in intense exercise that evening or have a fever the night of the incident and has abstained from alcohol for 2 years.

His wife says that after he took zolpidem, when he was woken up, “He was not there; his eyes were glazed and glossy, and it’s like he was in another world,” and his speech and behavior were bizarre. She also reports that his eyes were open when he engaged in this behavior that appeared suicidal.

Three months before the incident, Mr. R had reported nightmares with dream enactment behaviors, hypervigilance on awakening and during the daytime, irritability, and anxious and depressed mood with neurovegetative symptoms, and was referred to our clinic for medication management. He also reported no prior or current manic or psychotic symptoms, denied suicidal thoughts, and had no history of suicide attempts. Mr. R’s medication regimen included tramadol, 400 mg/d, for chronic knee pain; fluoxetine, 60 mg/d, for depression and PTSD; and propranolol ER, 60 mg/d, and propranolol, 10 mg/d as needed, for anxiety. He was started on prazosin, 2 mg/d, titrated to 4 mg/d, for medication management of nightmares.

Mr. R also was referred to the sleep laboratory for a polysomnogram (PSG) because of reported loud snoring and witnessed apneas, especially because sleep apnea can cause nightmares and dream enactment behaviors. The PSG was negative for sleep apnea or excessive periodic limb movements of sleep, but showed increased electromyographic (EMG) activity during REM sleep, which was consistent with his report of dream enactment behaviors. Two months later, he reported improvement in nightmares and depression, but not in dream enactment behaviors. Because of prominent anxiety and irritability, he was started on gabapentin, 300 mg, 3 times a day.

What factor increases the risk of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines?
a) greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep
b) lesser degree of muscle relaxation
c) both a and b
d) none of the above

[polldaddy:9712556]

The authors’ observations

Factors that increase the likelihood of parasomnias include:

• zolpidem >10 mg at bedtime
• concomitant use of other CNS depressants, including sedative hypnotic agents and alcohol
• female sex
• not falling asleep immediately after taking zolpidem
• personal or family history of parasomnias
• living alone
• poor pill management
• presence of sleep disruptors such as sleep apnea and periodic limb movements of sleep.^1,4,5,10

Higher dosages of zolpidem (>10 mg/d) have been identified as the predictive risk factor.⁵ In the Chopra et al⁴ case report on sleep-related suicidal behavior related to zolpidem, 10 mg at bedtime, concomitant dehydration and alcohol use were implicated as facilitating factors. Dehydration could increase serum levels of zolpidem resulting in greater CNS effects. Alcohol use was implicated in the Gibson et al⁸ case report as well, and the patient had multiple episodes of sleepwalking and sleep-related eating.However, Mr. R was not dehydrated or using alcohol.

An interesting feature of Mr. R’s case is that he was taking fluoxetine. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 is involved in metabolizing zolpidem, and norfluoxetine, a metabolite of fluoxetine, inhibits CYP3A4. Although studies have not found pharmacokinetic interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, these studies did not investigate fluoxetine dosages >20 mg/d.¹¹ The inhibition of CYP enzymes by fluoxetine likely is dose-dependent,¹² and therefore concomitant administration of high-dosage fluoxetine (>20 mg/d) with zolpidem might result in higher serum levels of zolpidem.

Mr. R also was taking several sedating agents (gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, and tramadol). The concomitant use of these sedative-hypnotic agents could have increased his risk of parasomnia. A review of the literature did not reveal any reports of gabapentin, hydroxyzine, melatonin, or tramadol causing parasomnias. This observation, as well as the well-known role of zolpidem⁵ in etiopathogenesis of parasomnias, indicates that the pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed while asleep likely was a direct result of zolpidem use in presence of other facilitating factors. Gabapentin, which is known to increase the depth of sleep, was added to his regimen 1 month before his parasomnia episode. Therefore, gabapentin could have triggered parasomnia with zolpidem therapy.^1,13

Conditions that provoke repeated cortical arousals (eg, periodic limb movement disorder [PLMD] and sleep apnea) or increase depth or pressure of sleep (intense exercise in the evening, fever, sleep deprivation) are thought to be associated with NREM parasomnias.^1-4 However, Mr. R underwent in-laboratory PSG and tested negative for major cortical arousal-inducing conditions, such as PLMD and sleep apnea.
 

Some other sleep disruptors likely were involved in Mr. R’s case. Auditory and tactile stimuli are known to cause cortical arousals, with additive effect seen when these 2 stimuli are combined.^3,14 Additionally, these exogenous stimuli are known to trigger sleep-related violent parasomnias.¹⁵ Mr. R displayed this behavior after his wife woke him up. The auditory stimulus of his wife’s voice and/or tactile stimulus involved in the act of waking Mr. R likely played a role in the suicidal and violent nature of his NREM parasomnia.

[polldaddy:9712581]

The authors’ observations

In general, the mechanisms by which zolpidem causes NREM parasomnias are not completely understood. The sedation-related amnestic properties of zolpidem might explain some of these behaviors. Patients could perform these behaviors after waking and have subsequent amnesia.⁴ There is greater preservation of Stage N3 sleep with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines. Benzodiazepines also cause muscle relaxation while the motor system remains relatively more active during sleep with zolpidem because of its selectivity for α-1 subunit of gamma-aminobutyric acid A receptor. These factors might increase the likelihood of NREM parasomnias with zolpidem compared with benzodiazepines.⁴

Types of parasomnias

According to DSM-5, there are 2 categories of parasomnias based on the sleep stage from which a parasomnia emerges.² REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD) refers to complex motor and/or vocalizations during REM sleep, accompanied by increased EMG activity during REM sleep (Table).^2,3

The pseudo-suicidal behavior Mr. R displayed likely was NREM parasomnia because it occurred in the first third of the night with his eyes open and impaired recall after the event. Interestingly, Mr. R had RBD in addition to the NREM parasomnia likely caused by zolpidem. This is evident from Mr. R’s frequent dream enactment behaviors, such as kicking, thrashing, and punching during sleep, along with increased EMG activity during REM sleep as recorded on the PSG.¹⁰ The presence of RBD could be explained by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (fluoxetine) use, and comorbidity with PTSD.^2,16

Management of parasomnias

Initial management of parasomnias involves decreasing the risk of parasomnia-related injury. Suggested safety measures include:

• sleeping away from windows
• sleeping in a sleeping bag
• sleeping on a lower floor
• locking windows and doors
• removing potentially dangerous objects from the bedroom
• putting gates across stairwells
• installing bells or alarms on door knobs.¹⁵

Removing access to firearms or other weapons such as knives is of utmost importance especially with patients who have easy access during wakefulness. If removing weapons is not feasible, consider disarming, securing, or locking them.¹⁵ These considerations are relevant to veterans with PTSD because of the high prevalence of symptoms, including depression, insomnia, and pain, which require sedating medications.¹⁷ A review of parasomnias among a large sample of psychiatric outpatients revealed that a variety of sedating medications, including antidepressants, can lead to NREM parasomnias.¹⁸ Therefore, exercise caution when prescribing sedating medications, especially in patients vulnerable to developing dangerous parasomnias, such as a veteran with PTSD and easy access to guns.¹⁹

TREATMENT Zolpidem stopped

Mr. R immediately stops taking zolpidem because he is aware of its association with abnormal behaviors during sleep, and his wife removes his access to firearms and knives at night. Because of his history of clinical benefit and no history of parasomnias with mirtazapine, Mr. R is started on mirtazapine for insomnia that previously was treated with zolpidem, and residual depression. Six months after discontinuing zolpidem, he does not experience NREM parasomnias, and there are no changes in his dream enactment behaviors.

Summing up

Zolpidem therapy could be associated with unusual variants of NREM parasomnia, sleepwalking type; sleep-related pseudo-suicidal behavior is one such variant. Several factors could play a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia with zolpidem therapy. In Mr. R’s case, the pharmacokinetic drug interactions between fluoxetine and zolpidem, as well as concomitant use of several sedating agents could have played a role in increasing the likelihood of NREM parasomnia, with audio-tactile stimuli contributing to the violent and suicidal nature of the parasomnia. Exercise caution when using CYP enzyme inhibitors, such as fluoxetine and paroxetine, in combination with zolpidem. Knowledge of the potential interaction between zolpidem and fluoxetine is important because anti­depressants and hypnotics are commonly co-prescribed because insomnia often is comorbid with other psychiatric disorders.

In veterans with PTSD who do not have suicidal ideations while awake, life-threatening non-intentional behavior is a risk because of easy access to guns or other weapons. Sedative-hypnotic medications commonly are prescribed to patients with PTSD. Exercise caution when using hypnotic agents such as zolpidem, and consider sleep aids with a lower risk of parasomnias (based on the author’s experience, trazodone, mirtazapine, melatonin, and gabapentin) when possible. Non-pharmacologic treatments of insomnia, such as sleep hygiene education and, more importantly, cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia, are preferred. If a patient is already taking zolpidem, nightly dosage should not be >10 mg. Polypharmacy with other sedating medications should be avoided when possible and both exogenous (noise, pets) and endogenous sleep disruptors (sleep apnea, PLMD) should be addressed. Advise the patient to avoid alcohol and remove firearms and other potential weapons. Discontinue zolpidem if the patient develops sleep-related abnormal behavior because of its potential to take on violent forms.

Does the course of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) differ depending on whether the person is in the military or has left? Researchers from Naval Health Research Center and the VA wondered whether separation from the military could create a “significant disruption of routine, order, and structure,” which might exacerbate PTSD symptoms, and would the symptoms subside as the veteran adjusted to civilian life?

Using data from the Millennium Cohort Study, researchers examined trajectories of PTSD among 22,080 military personnel across 4 time points, about 3 years apart, from 2001 to 2013. They compared trajectories between people who separated before the second time point or remained in the military across the entire study period. The researchers assessed PTSD screening and symptoms using the PTSD Checklist-Civilian, for which higher scores represent more severe symptoms.

The researchers say 4 distinct classes described symptom trajectories: resilient, delayed onset, improving, and elevated-recovering. Overall, the trajectories were similar for veterans and active-duty personnel. Veterans had a higher likelihood of screening positive for PTSD at baseline before separation and were more likely to newly screen positive for PTSD at waves 2, 3, and 4. Of participants who screened positive for PTSD, veterans had more severe symptoms compared with active-duty personnel at baseline but not at any subsequent assessments.

However, differences between the “elevated-recovering” classes grew over time, showing that veterans did not recover as soon or as “dramatically,” the researchers say. This might be due to symptoms being exacerbated by the change in routine.

The good news is that most veterans and active-duty personnel fell into the resilient class (82% and 87%, respectively). The researchers cite other studies that have found resilience is the most common response to PTSD.

The researchers noted several risk factors for slower recovery, such as lower physical well-being and a history of multiple life stressors. The “delayed onset” group may be a good target for interventions, they suggest. This group reported high use of VA care, but still 26% reported no VA care, indicating that they could benefit from continued efforts to identify and treat them.

Does the course of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) differ depending on whether the person is in the military or has left? Researchers from Naval Health Research Center and the VA wondered whether separation from the military could create a “significant disruption of routine, order, and structure,” which might exacerbate PTSD symptoms, and would the symptoms subside as the veteran adjusted to civilian life?

Using data from the Millennium Cohort Study, researchers examined trajectories of PTSD among 22,080 military personnel across 4 time points, about 3 years apart, from 2001 to 2013. They compared trajectories between people who separated before the second time point or remained in the military across the entire study period. The researchers assessed PTSD screening and symptoms using the PTSD Checklist-Civilian, for which higher scores represent more severe symptoms.

The researchers say 4 distinct classes described symptom trajectories: resilient, delayed onset, improving, and elevated-recovering. Overall, the trajectories were similar for veterans and active-duty personnel. Veterans had a higher likelihood of screening positive for PTSD at baseline before separation and were more likely to newly screen positive for PTSD at waves 2, 3, and 4. Of participants who screened positive for PTSD, veterans had more severe symptoms compared with active-duty personnel at baseline but not at any subsequent assessments.

However, differences between the “elevated-recovering” classes grew over time, showing that veterans did not recover as soon or as “dramatically,” the researchers say. This might be due to symptoms being exacerbated by the change in routine.

The good news is that most veterans and active-duty personnel fell into the resilient class (82% and 87%, respectively). The researchers cite other studies that have found resilience is the most common response to PTSD.

The researchers noted several risk factors for slower recovery, such as lower physical well-being and a history of multiple life stressors. The “delayed onset” group may be a good target for interventions, they suggest. This group reported high use of VA care, but still 26% reported no VA care, indicating that they could benefit from continued efforts to identify and treat them.

Does the course of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) differ depending on whether the person is in the military or has left? Researchers from Naval Health Research Center and the VA wondered whether separation from the military could create a “significant disruption of routine, order, and structure,” which might exacerbate PTSD symptoms, and would the symptoms subside as the veteran adjusted to civilian life?

Using data from the Millennium Cohort Study, researchers examined trajectories of PTSD among 22,080 military personnel across 4 time points, about 3 years apart, from 2001 to 2013. They compared trajectories between people who separated before the second time point or remained in the military across the entire study period. The researchers assessed PTSD screening and symptoms using the PTSD Checklist-Civilian, for which higher scores represent more severe symptoms.

The researchers say 4 distinct classes described symptom trajectories: resilient, delayed onset, improving, and elevated-recovering. Overall, the trajectories were similar for veterans and active-duty personnel. Veterans had a higher likelihood of screening positive for PTSD at baseline before separation and were more likely to newly screen positive for PTSD at waves 2, 3, and 4. Of participants who screened positive for PTSD, veterans had more severe symptoms compared with active-duty personnel at baseline but not at any subsequent assessments.

However, differences between the “elevated-recovering” classes grew over time, showing that veterans did not recover as soon or as “dramatically,” the researchers say. This might be due to symptoms being exacerbated by the change in routine.

The good news is that most veterans and active-duty personnel fell into the resilient class (82% and 87%, respectively). The researchers cite other studies that have found resilience is the most common response to PTSD.

The researchers noted several risk factors for slower recovery, such as lower physical well-being and a history of multiple life stressors. The “delayed onset” group may be a good target for interventions, they suggest. This group reported high use of VA care, but still 26% reported no VA care, indicating that they could benefit from continued efforts to identify and treat them.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition that may develop in response to a traumatic event, such as that experienced by a soldier during active combat duty. In 2009, more than 495,000 veterans within the VA health care system were treated for PTSD—nearly triple the number a decade earlier.¹ Core symptoms of PTSD include alterations in arousal and reactivity, avoidant behaviors, negative alterations in mood and cognition, and intrusive thoughts and nightmares. All of the symptoms can be debilitating. First-line pharmacotherapy options that target these core symptoms include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).²

The anxiolytic and sedative effects of benzodiazepines may provide quick relief from many of the secondary symptoms of PTSD, including sleep disturbances, irritability, and panic attacks. However, benzodiazepines potentially interfere with the extinction of conditioned fear—a goal integral to certain types of psychotherapy, such as exposure therapy.^3,4 In addition, the systematic review and meta-analysis by Guina and colleagues revealed that benzodiazepines are ineffective in the treatment of PTSD.⁵ The majority of the evaluated studies that used PTSD-specific measures (eg, Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale [CAPS]) found increased PTSD severity and worse prognosis with use of these medications.⁵ In 2010, the VA and the DoD released a joint guideline for PTSD management.² According to the guideline, benzodiazepines cause harm when used in PTSD and are relatively contraindicated in combat veterans because of the higher incidence of comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs) in these veterans relative to the general population.^2,6

Opioid use also has been linked to poor functional and clinical outcomes in veterans with PTSD. Among patients being treated for opioid use disorder, those with PTSD were less likely to endorse employment as a main source of income and had a higher incidence of recent attempted suicide.⁷ In a large retrospective cohort study, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans with PTSD who were prescribed opioids were more likely to present to the emergency department (ED) and to be hospitalized for overdoses and injuries.⁸

Despite the risks of benzodiazepine and opioid use in this patient population, these medications are still often prescribed to veterans with PTSD for symptomatic relief. In fiscal year 2009, across the VHA system 37% of veterans diagnosed with PTSD were prescribed a benzodiazepine, 69% of the time by a mental health provider.⁹ Among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, those with PTSD were significantly more likely to be prescribed an opioid for diagnosed pain—relative to those with a mental health disorder other than PTSD and those without a mental health disorder.⁸ Thus, there seems to be a disconnect between guideline recommendations and current practice.

The authors conducted a study to assess the potential risk of hospitalization for veterans with PTSD prescribed first-line pharmacotherapy and those also prescribed concurrent benzodiazepine and/or opioid therapy since the release of the PTSD guideline in 2010.²

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, conducted at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System (SAVAHCS), the authors analyzed electronic medical record data from November 1, 2009 to August 1, 2015. Study inclusion criteria were veteran, aged 18 to 89 years, diagnosis of PTSD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 309.81), and SSRI or SNRI newly prescribed between November 1, 2010 and August 1, 2013.

Any veteran prescribed at least one 30-day or longer supply of any benzodiazepine or opioid within 1 year before the SSRI/SNRI initial prescription date was excluded from the study. Also excluded was any patient treated for PTSD at a facility outside SAVAHCS or whose 2-year evaluation period extended past August 1, 2015.

Study Groups

An outpatient prescription was determined to be the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription for a patient who received less than a 30-day cumulative supply of any SSRI or SNRI within 1 year before that prescription date. Citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine were the prespecified SSRI/SNRIs included in the study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any benzodiazepine (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI and benzodiazepine therapy. Alprazolam, chlordiazepoxide, clonazepam, clorazepate, diazepam, estazolam, flurazepam, lorazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, and triazolam were the prespecified benzodiazepines included in the study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any opioid (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI and opioid therapy. Codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, levorphanol, meperidine, methadone, morphine, oxymorphone, pentazocine, propoxyphene, and tramadol were the prespecified opioids included in this study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any benzodiazepine and any opioid (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy.

The index date was defined as the first date of prescription overlap. If there was no benzodiazepine or opioid prescription within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date, the patient was categorized as being on SSRI/SNRI monotherapy, and the index date was the date of the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription. For each patient, hospitalization data from the 2-year period after the index date were evaluated.

Outcomes and Data Collection

For evaluation of the primary outcome (2-year overall hospitalization risk), the number of unique mental health and medical/surgical hospitalizations was identified by the number of discharge summaries documented in the patient chart during the evaluation period. Time to first hospitalization was recorded for the survival data analysis. Secondary outcomes were mental health hospitalization risk, medical/surgical hospitalization risk, and all-cause mortality within 2 years.

Demographic data that were collected included age, sex, comorbid mental health disorders, comorbid SUDs, and concomitant use of psychotropic medications at index date (baseline). Select comorbid mental health disorders (anxiety, schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder) and substance use disorders (alcohol, opioid, illicit drug) also were identified. Data on insomnia and pain comorbidities (headaches or migraines; neuropathy; head, neck, back, arthritis, or joint pain) were collected, as these comorbidities could be indications for prescribing benzodiazepines and opioids. Concomitant baseline use of classes of psychotropic medications (antipsychotics, non-SSRI/SNRI antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, nonbenzodiazepine sedatives/hypnotics) also were documented. Last, hospitalizations within 6 months before the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were noted.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze all baseline demographic data. Continuous measures were evaluated with 1-way analyses of variance and post hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons, and categorical measures with contingency tables and χ² tests or Fisher exact tests. When the overall χ² test was significant across all 4 study groups, post hoc comparisons were performed between the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group and each other group with Bonferroni adjusted for 3 comparisons.

Unadjusted and adjusted Weibull proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate hospitalization risk within 2 years after the index date for the different study groups with the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group as the referent. Robust standard errors were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Weibull model (and not the Cox model) was used because it does not assume hazard remains constant over time, which is appropriate in this instance, as the risk of an adverse event (AE) may be higher when first starting a medication or combination of medications relative to when doses are stabilized. Models were adjusted for age, sex, baseline mental health disorders, and baseline psychotropic medications. As earlier hospitalizations showed evidence of effect modification when this covariate was tested, hazard analyses were limited to patients not previously hospitalized.

The effect size of differences in hospitalization risk meeting statistical significance was assessed by estimating the number needed to harm (NNH) and 95% CIs (not shown) to observe 1 additional hospitalization in each medication group relative to the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group over a 90-day period. A 95% CI for NNH that did not include 0 indicated the NNH was significant at the .05 level.¹⁰ All-cause mortality was evaluated with the Fisher exact test with post hoc Bonferroni-corrected comparisons as appropriate.

Results

Of 1,703 patients screened, 613 met all study inclusion criteria (Figure 1). 

Baseline characteristics revealed no significant differences between groups in age or comorbid depression, schizophrenia, or SUDs (Table 1). 

With the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group as the referent, all concurrent therapy groups were at significantly increased risk for overall hospitalization within 2 years after the index date (Tables 2 & 3, Figure 2). 

Risk for mental health hospitalization was significantly increased in all concurrent therapy groups relative to the referent group.

Discussion

In 2013, Hawkins and colleagues evaluated hospitalization risk in veterans treated for PTSD within the Northwest VISN 20 between 2004 and 2010.¹¹ Compared with patients treated with only an SSRI or SNRI, those treated with 1 of those medications and a benzodiazepine were at significantly higher risk for overall hospitalization (AHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32; P < .001) and mental health hospitalization (AHR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.37-2.53; P < .001). Furthermore, those prescribed a benzodiazepine and an opioid along with an SSRI or SNRI were at higher risk for overall hospitalization (AHR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.22-4.00; P < .001), mental health hospitalization (AHR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.35-2.98; P < .01), medical/surgical hospitalization (AHR, 4.86; 95% CI, 3.30-7.14; P < .001), and ED visits (AHR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.53-2.65; P < .001).

Findings from the present study, which covered a period after the newest PTSD guideline was released,support findings reported by Hawkins and colleagues in their retrospective cohort study covering an earlier period.^2,11 In the present study, compared with the monotherapy group, the SSRI/SNRI and benzodiazepine therapy group and the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group were at higher risk for both overall hospitalization and mental health hospitalization within 2 years. However, in a subset of PTSD patients prescribed opioids along with first-line pharmacotherapy, this study found that overall, mental health, and medical/surgical hospitalizations were significantly increased as well. Furthermore, this study found 2-year mortality was significantly higher for the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group than for the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group.

Adjusted hazard ratios were higher in the present study than those in the study by Hawkins and colleagues,but CIs were wider as well.¹¹ These differences may be attributable to the relatively smaller sample size of the present study and may explain why the HR was higher for the SSRI/SNRI and opioid therapy group than for the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group.

Nevertheless, these results support the growing body of evidence establishing the many risks for AEs when benzodiazepines and opioids are prescribed in the setting of PTSD. Unfortunately, it seems that, against clear guideline recommendations and literature findings, these medications still are being prescribed to this vulnerable, high-risk population.

In the last few months of 2013, the VA health care system launched 2 important medication safety initiatives. The Psychotropic Drug Safety Initiative (PDSI) was established as a quality improvement initiative for evidence-based provision of psychotropic medications. One PDSI metric in particular focused on reducing the proportion of veterans with PTSD being treated with benzodiazepines. The Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) came as a response to a dramatic increase in the number of fatal overdoses related to prescription opioids—an increase linked to an unprecedented jump in opioid use for nonmalignant pain. As the present study’s inclusion cutoff date of August 1, 2013, preceded the debut of both PDSI and OSI, the benzodiazepine and opioid prescription rates reported here might be higher than those currently being found under the 2 initiatives.

Limitations

This study had several limitations that might affect the interpretation or generalizability of findings. Requiring at least a 30-day supply for prescription eligibility was an attempt to focus on chronic use of medications rather than on, for example, onetime supplies of opioids for dental procedures. However, prescription fill history was not assessed. Therefore, patients could have been included in certain study groups even if their SSRI, SNRI, benzodiazepine, or opioid prescription was not refilled. Furthermore, only VA medical records were used; non-VA prescriptions were not captured.

In addition, this study was limited to patients who at bare minimum were prescribed an SSRI or an SNRI. Some patients may have been prescribed a benzodiazepine and/or an opioid but were not on appropriate first-line pharmacotherapy for PTSD. These patients were excluded from the study, and their relative hospitalization risk went unexplored. Therefore, the magnitude of the issue at hand might have been underestimated.

Although psychotherapy is a first-line treatment option for PTSD, the study did not assess the potential impact of psychotherapy on outcomes or the groups’ relative proportions of patients undergoing psychotherapy. It is unknown whether the groups were equivalent at baseline in regards to psychotherapy participation rates.

This study did not characterize the specific reasons for hospitalization beyond whether it was for a mental health or a medical/surgical issue; thus, no distinction was made between hospitalizations for an elective procedure and hospitalizations for a drug overdose or an injury. Investigators could characterize admission diagnoses to better assess whether hospitalizations are truly associated with study medications or whether patients are being hospitalized for unrelated reasons. In addition, they could elucidate the true nature of hospitalization risk associated with SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid use by comparing admission diagnoses made before and after initiation of these pharmacologic therapies.

This study also could not assess outcomes for patients who presented to the ED but were not admitted. If the hospital’s floor and ED beds were at full capacity, some patients might have been transferred to an outside facility. However, this scenario is not common at SAVAHCS, where the study was conducted.

Although some comorbid conditions were noted, the study did not evaluate whether its patients had a compelling indication for benzodiazepines in particular. Opioid use is very limited to the treatment of pain, and the majority of the patients on opioid therapy in this study had a diagnosed pain syndrome.

Because of the study’s sample size and power limitations, patients were eligible to be included in a concurrent therapy group if a benzodiazepine, an opioid, or both were added no later than 1 year after SSRI/SNRI initiation. This gap of up to 1 year might have introduced some variability in exposure to risk from earlier prescribed medications. However, sensitivity analyses were performed with multiple constructed Weibull models of time to hospitalization based on subsets with varying overlapping medication gaps. Analyses revealed relatively stable HRs, suggesting that potential bias did not occur.

Future Directions

Investigators could explore the higher all-cause mortality rates in the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group, as this study did not assess cause of death in these patients. Whether any patients died of reasons directly attributable to benzodiazepines or opioids is unknown.

That SSRIs and SNRIs are the only established first-line pharmacologic treatment options for PTSD symptoms partly accounts for the widespread use of benzodiazepines in this population. For that reason, beyond characterizing the many risks associated with using benzodiazepines to manage these symptoms, there is a huge need to research the viability of other pharmacologic agents in treating PTSD. This is especially important given the slower onset to efficacy of the SSRIs and SNRIs; per estimates, only up to 60% of patients respond to SSRIs, and 20% to 30% achieve full remission of PTSD.¹² Furthermore, these rates likely are even lower for combat veterans than those for the general population. Several trials discussed in a 2009 guideline review of the treatment of patients with acute stress disorder and PTSD have called into question the efficacy of SSRIs for combat-related PTSD.¹³ In these randomized, controlled trials, change in PTSD symptom severity as measured with CAPS was not significantly reduced with SSRIs compared with placebo.

A systematic review revealed that, of the nonantidepressants used as adjuncts in treating patients who do not achieve remission with SSRIs, the atypical antipsychotic risperidone may have the strongest supporting evidence.¹² However, the present study found high rates of antipsychotic use in the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group, which also had the highest all-cause mortality rate. The safety of risperidone as an alternative treatment needs further evaluation.

Some prospective studies have suggested that the α₁ blockers doxazosin and prazosin, the latter of which is commonly used for PTSD nightmares, also may improve PTSD symptoms as assessed by CAPS.^14,15 Although these results are promising, the trials to date have been conducted with relatively small sample sizes.

With more veterans being treated for PTSD within the VA health care system, the central treatment goal remains: Adequately address the symptoms of PTSD while minimizing the harm caused by medications. Prescribers should limit benzodiazepine and opioid use in this population and consider safer nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options when possible.

Conclusion

Combat veterans with PTSD who are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or opioids in addition to first-line pharmacotherapy are at significantly increased risk for overall and mental health hospitalization.

Click here to read the digital edition.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition that may develop in response to a traumatic event, such as that experienced by a soldier during active combat duty. In 2009, more than 495,000 veterans within the VA health care system were treated for PTSD—nearly triple the number a decade earlier.¹ Core symptoms of PTSD include alterations in arousal and reactivity, avoidant behaviors, negative alterations in mood and cognition, and intrusive thoughts and nightmares. All of the symptoms can be debilitating. First-line pharmacotherapy options that target these core symptoms include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).²

The anxiolytic and sedative effects of benzodiazepines may provide quick relief from many of the secondary symptoms of PTSD, including sleep disturbances, irritability, and panic attacks. However, benzodiazepines potentially interfere with the extinction of conditioned fear—a goal integral to certain types of psychotherapy, such as exposure therapy.^3,4 In addition, the systematic review and meta-analysis by Guina and colleagues revealed that benzodiazepines are ineffective in the treatment of PTSD.⁵ The majority of the evaluated studies that used PTSD-specific measures (eg, Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale [CAPS]) found increased PTSD severity and worse prognosis with use of these medications.⁵ In 2010, the VA and the DoD released a joint guideline for PTSD management.² According to the guideline, benzodiazepines cause harm when used in PTSD and are relatively contraindicated in combat veterans because of the higher incidence of comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs) in these veterans relative to the general population.^2,6

Opioid use also has been linked to poor functional and clinical outcomes in veterans with PTSD. Among patients being treated for opioid use disorder, those with PTSD were less likely to endorse employment as a main source of income and had a higher incidence of recent attempted suicide.⁷ In a large retrospective cohort study, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans with PTSD who were prescribed opioids were more likely to present to the emergency department (ED) and to be hospitalized for overdoses and injuries.⁸

Despite the risks of benzodiazepine and opioid use in this patient population, these medications are still often prescribed to veterans with PTSD for symptomatic relief. In fiscal year 2009, across the VHA system 37% of veterans diagnosed with PTSD were prescribed a benzodiazepine, 69% of the time by a mental health provider.⁹ Among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, those with PTSD were significantly more likely to be prescribed an opioid for diagnosed pain—relative to those with a mental health disorder other than PTSD and those without a mental health disorder.⁸ Thus, there seems to be a disconnect between guideline recommendations and current practice.

The authors conducted a study to assess the potential risk of hospitalization for veterans with PTSD prescribed first-line pharmacotherapy and those also prescribed concurrent benzodiazepine and/or opioid therapy since the release of the PTSD guideline in 2010.²

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, conducted at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System (SAVAHCS), the authors analyzed electronic medical record data from November 1, 2009 to August 1, 2015. Study inclusion criteria were veteran, aged 18 to 89 years, diagnosis of PTSD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 309.81), and SSRI or SNRI newly prescribed between November 1, 2010 and August 1, 2013.

Any veteran prescribed at least one 30-day or longer supply of any benzodiazepine or opioid within 1 year before the SSRI/SNRI initial prescription date was excluded from the study. Also excluded was any patient treated for PTSD at a facility outside SAVAHCS or whose 2-year evaluation period extended past August 1, 2015.

Study Groups

An outpatient prescription was determined to be the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription for a patient who received less than a 30-day cumulative supply of any SSRI or SNRI within 1 year before that prescription date. Citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine were the prespecified SSRI/SNRIs included in the study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any benzodiazepine (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI and benzodiazepine therapy. Alprazolam, chlordiazepoxide, clonazepam, clorazepate, diazepam, estazolam, flurazepam, lorazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, and triazolam were the prespecified benzodiazepines included in the study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any opioid (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI and opioid therapy. Codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, levorphanol, meperidine, methadone, morphine, oxymorphone, pentazocine, propoxyphene, and tramadol were the prespecified opioids included in this study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any benzodiazepine and any opioid (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy.

The index date was defined as the first date of prescription overlap. If there was no benzodiazepine or opioid prescription within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date, the patient was categorized as being on SSRI/SNRI monotherapy, and the index date was the date of the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription. For each patient, hospitalization data from the 2-year period after the index date were evaluated.

Outcomes and Data Collection

For evaluation of the primary outcome (2-year overall hospitalization risk), the number of unique mental health and medical/surgical hospitalizations was identified by the number of discharge summaries documented in the patient chart during the evaluation period. Time to first hospitalization was recorded for the survival data analysis. Secondary outcomes were mental health hospitalization risk, medical/surgical hospitalization risk, and all-cause mortality within 2 years.

Demographic data that were collected included age, sex, comorbid mental health disorders, comorbid SUDs, and concomitant use of psychotropic medications at index date (baseline). Select comorbid mental health disorders (anxiety, schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder) and substance use disorders (alcohol, opioid, illicit drug) also were identified. Data on insomnia and pain comorbidities (headaches or migraines; neuropathy; head, neck, back, arthritis, or joint pain) were collected, as these comorbidities could be indications for prescribing benzodiazepines and opioids. Concomitant baseline use of classes of psychotropic medications (antipsychotics, non-SSRI/SNRI antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, nonbenzodiazepine sedatives/hypnotics) also were documented. Last, hospitalizations within 6 months before the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were noted.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze all baseline demographic data. Continuous measures were evaluated with 1-way analyses of variance and post hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons, and categorical measures with contingency tables and χ² tests or Fisher exact tests. When the overall χ² test was significant across all 4 study groups, post hoc comparisons were performed between the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group and each other group with Bonferroni adjusted for 3 comparisons.

Unadjusted and adjusted Weibull proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate hospitalization risk within 2 years after the index date for the different study groups with the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group as the referent. Robust standard errors were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Weibull model (and not the Cox model) was used because it does not assume hazard remains constant over time, which is appropriate in this instance, as the risk of an adverse event (AE) may be higher when first starting a medication or combination of medications relative to when doses are stabilized. Models were adjusted for age, sex, baseline mental health disorders, and baseline psychotropic medications. As earlier hospitalizations showed evidence of effect modification when this covariate was tested, hazard analyses were limited to patients not previously hospitalized.

The effect size of differences in hospitalization risk meeting statistical significance was assessed by estimating the number needed to harm (NNH) and 95% CIs (not shown) to observe 1 additional hospitalization in each medication group relative to the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group over a 90-day period. A 95% CI for NNH that did not include 0 indicated the NNH was significant at the .05 level.¹⁰ All-cause mortality was evaluated with the Fisher exact test with post hoc Bonferroni-corrected comparisons as appropriate.

Results

Of 1,703 patients screened, 613 met all study inclusion criteria (Figure 1). 

Baseline characteristics revealed no significant differences between groups in age or comorbid depression, schizophrenia, or SUDs (Table 1). 

With the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group as the referent, all concurrent therapy groups were at significantly increased risk for overall hospitalization within 2 years after the index date (Tables 2 & 3, Figure 2). 

Risk for mental health hospitalization was significantly increased in all concurrent therapy groups relative to the referent group.

Discussion

In 2013, Hawkins and colleagues evaluated hospitalization risk in veterans treated for PTSD within the Northwest VISN 20 between 2004 and 2010.¹¹ Compared with patients treated with only an SSRI or SNRI, those treated with 1 of those medications and a benzodiazepine were at significantly higher risk for overall hospitalization (AHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32; P < .001) and mental health hospitalization (AHR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.37-2.53; P < .001). Furthermore, those prescribed a benzodiazepine and an opioid along with an SSRI or SNRI were at higher risk for overall hospitalization (AHR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.22-4.00; P < .001), mental health hospitalization (AHR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.35-2.98; P < .01), medical/surgical hospitalization (AHR, 4.86; 95% CI, 3.30-7.14; P < .001), and ED visits (AHR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.53-2.65; P < .001).

Findings from the present study, which covered a period after the newest PTSD guideline was released,support findings reported by Hawkins and colleagues in their retrospective cohort study covering an earlier period.^2,11 In the present study, compared with the monotherapy group, the SSRI/SNRI and benzodiazepine therapy group and the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group were at higher risk for both overall hospitalization and mental health hospitalization within 2 years. However, in a subset of PTSD patients prescribed opioids along with first-line pharmacotherapy, this study found that overall, mental health, and medical/surgical hospitalizations were significantly increased as well. Furthermore, this study found 2-year mortality was significantly higher for the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group than for the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group.

Adjusted hazard ratios were higher in the present study than those in the study by Hawkins and colleagues,but CIs were wider as well.¹¹ These differences may be attributable to the relatively smaller sample size of the present study and may explain why the HR was higher for the SSRI/SNRI and opioid therapy group than for the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group.

Nevertheless, these results support the growing body of evidence establishing the many risks for AEs when benzodiazepines and opioids are prescribed in the setting of PTSD. Unfortunately, it seems that, against clear guideline recommendations and literature findings, these medications still are being prescribed to this vulnerable, high-risk population.

In the last few months of 2013, the VA health care system launched 2 important medication safety initiatives. The Psychotropic Drug Safety Initiative (PDSI) was established as a quality improvement initiative for evidence-based provision of psychotropic medications. One PDSI metric in particular focused on reducing the proportion of veterans with PTSD being treated with benzodiazepines. The Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) came as a response to a dramatic increase in the number of fatal overdoses related to prescription opioids—an increase linked to an unprecedented jump in opioid use for nonmalignant pain. As the present study’s inclusion cutoff date of August 1, 2013, preceded the debut of both PDSI and OSI, the benzodiazepine and opioid prescription rates reported here might be higher than those currently being found under the 2 initiatives.

Limitations

This study had several limitations that might affect the interpretation or generalizability of findings. Requiring at least a 30-day supply for prescription eligibility was an attempt to focus on chronic use of medications rather than on, for example, onetime supplies of opioids for dental procedures. However, prescription fill history was not assessed. Therefore, patients could have been included in certain study groups even if their SSRI, SNRI, benzodiazepine, or opioid prescription was not refilled. Furthermore, only VA medical records were used; non-VA prescriptions were not captured.

In addition, this study was limited to patients who at bare minimum were prescribed an SSRI or an SNRI. Some patients may have been prescribed a benzodiazepine and/or an opioid but were not on appropriate first-line pharmacotherapy for PTSD. These patients were excluded from the study, and their relative hospitalization risk went unexplored. Therefore, the magnitude of the issue at hand might have been underestimated.

Although psychotherapy is a first-line treatment option for PTSD, the study did not assess the potential impact of psychotherapy on outcomes or the groups’ relative proportions of patients undergoing psychotherapy. It is unknown whether the groups were equivalent at baseline in regards to psychotherapy participation rates.

This study did not characterize the specific reasons for hospitalization beyond whether it was for a mental health or a medical/surgical issue; thus, no distinction was made between hospitalizations for an elective procedure and hospitalizations for a drug overdose or an injury. Investigators could characterize admission diagnoses to better assess whether hospitalizations are truly associated with study medications or whether patients are being hospitalized for unrelated reasons. In addition, they could elucidate the true nature of hospitalization risk associated with SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid use by comparing admission diagnoses made before and after initiation of these pharmacologic therapies.

This study also could not assess outcomes for patients who presented to the ED but were not admitted. If the hospital’s floor and ED beds were at full capacity, some patients might have been transferred to an outside facility. However, this scenario is not common at SAVAHCS, where the study was conducted.

Although some comorbid conditions were noted, the study did not evaluate whether its patients had a compelling indication for benzodiazepines in particular. Opioid use is very limited to the treatment of pain, and the majority of the patients on opioid therapy in this study had a diagnosed pain syndrome.

Because of the study’s sample size and power limitations, patients were eligible to be included in a concurrent therapy group if a benzodiazepine, an opioid, or both were added no later than 1 year after SSRI/SNRI initiation. This gap of up to 1 year might have introduced some variability in exposure to risk from earlier prescribed medications. However, sensitivity analyses were performed with multiple constructed Weibull models of time to hospitalization based on subsets with varying overlapping medication gaps. Analyses revealed relatively stable HRs, suggesting that potential bias did not occur.

Future Directions

Investigators could explore the higher all-cause mortality rates in the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group, as this study did not assess cause of death in these patients. Whether any patients died of reasons directly attributable to benzodiazepines or opioids is unknown.

That SSRIs and SNRIs are the only established first-line pharmacologic treatment options for PTSD symptoms partly accounts for the widespread use of benzodiazepines in this population. For that reason, beyond characterizing the many risks associated with using benzodiazepines to manage these symptoms, there is a huge need to research the viability of other pharmacologic agents in treating PTSD. This is especially important given the slower onset to efficacy of the SSRIs and SNRIs; per estimates, only up to 60% of patients respond to SSRIs, and 20% to 30% achieve full remission of PTSD.¹² Furthermore, these rates likely are even lower for combat veterans than those for the general population. Several trials discussed in a 2009 guideline review of the treatment of patients with acute stress disorder and PTSD have called into question the efficacy of SSRIs for combat-related PTSD.¹³ In these randomized, controlled trials, change in PTSD symptom severity as measured with CAPS was not significantly reduced with SSRIs compared with placebo.

A systematic review revealed that, of the nonantidepressants used as adjuncts in treating patients who do not achieve remission with SSRIs, the atypical antipsychotic risperidone may have the strongest supporting evidence.¹² However, the present study found high rates of antipsychotic use in the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group, which also had the highest all-cause mortality rate. The safety of risperidone as an alternative treatment needs further evaluation.

Some prospective studies have suggested that the α₁ blockers doxazosin and prazosin, the latter of which is commonly used for PTSD nightmares, also may improve PTSD symptoms as assessed by CAPS.^14,15 Although these results are promising, the trials to date have been conducted with relatively small sample sizes.

With more veterans being treated for PTSD within the VA health care system, the central treatment goal remains: Adequately address the symptoms of PTSD while minimizing the harm caused by medications. Prescribers should limit benzodiazepine and opioid use in this population and consider safer nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options when possible.

Conclusion

Combat veterans with PTSD who are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or opioids in addition to first-line pharmacotherapy are at significantly increased risk for overall and mental health hospitalization.

Click here to read the digital edition.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental health condition that may develop in response to a traumatic event, such as that experienced by a soldier during active combat duty. In 2009, more than 495,000 veterans within the VA health care system were treated for PTSD—nearly triple the number a decade earlier.¹ Core symptoms of PTSD include alterations in arousal and reactivity, avoidant behaviors, negative alterations in mood and cognition, and intrusive thoughts and nightmares. All of the symptoms can be debilitating. First-line pharmacotherapy options that target these core symptoms include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).²

The anxiolytic and sedative effects of benzodiazepines may provide quick relief from many of the secondary symptoms of PTSD, including sleep disturbances, irritability, and panic attacks. However, benzodiazepines potentially interfere with the extinction of conditioned fear—a goal integral to certain types of psychotherapy, such as exposure therapy.^3,4 In addition, the systematic review and meta-analysis by Guina and colleagues revealed that benzodiazepines are ineffective in the treatment of PTSD.⁵ The majority of the evaluated studies that used PTSD-specific measures (eg, Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale [CAPS]) found increased PTSD severity and worse prognosis with use of these medications.⁵ In 2010, the VA and the DoD released a joint guideline for PTSD management.² According to the guideline, benzodiazepines cause harm when used in PTSD and are relatively contraindicated in combat veterans because of the higher incidence of comorbid substance use disorders (SUDs) in these veterans relative to the general population.^2,6

Opioid use also has been linked to poor functional and clinical outcomes in veterans with PTSD. Among patients being treated for opioid use disorder, those with PTSD were less likely to endorse employment as a main source of income and had a higher incidence of recent attempted suicide.⁷ In a large retrospective cohort study, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom veterans with PTSD who were prescribed opioids were more likely to present to the emergency department (ED) and to be hospitalized for overdoses and injuries.⁸

Despite the risks of benzodiazepine and opioid use in this patient population, these medications are still often prescribed to veterans with PTSD for symptomatic relief. In fiscal year 2009, across the VHA system 37% of veterans diagnosed with PTSD were prescribed a benzodiazepine, 69% of the time by a mental health provider.⁹ Among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, those with PTSD were significantly more likely to be prescribed an opioid for diagnosed pain—relative to those with a mental health disorder other than PTSD and those without a mental health disorder.⁸ Thus, there seems to be a disconnect between guideline recommendations and current practice.

The authors conducted a study to assess the potential risk of hospitalization for veterans with PTSD prescribed first-line pharmacotherapy and those also prescribed concurrent benzodiazepine and/or opioid therapy since the release of the PTSD guideline in 2010.²

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, conducted at the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System (SAVAHCS), the authors analyzed electronic medical record data from November 1, 2009 to August 1, 2015. Study inclusion criteria were veteran, aged 18 to 89 years, diagnosis of PTSD (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 309.81), and SSRI or SNRI newly prescribed between November 1, 2010 and August 1, 2013.

Any veteran prescribed at least one 30-day or longer supply of any benzodiazepine or opioid within 1 year before the SSRI/SNRI initial prescription date was excluded from the study. Also excluded was any patient treated for PTSD at a facility outside SAVAHCS or whose 2-year evaluation period extended past August 1, 2015.

Study Groups

An outpatient prescription was determined to be the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription for a patient who received less than a 30-day cumulative supply of any SSRI or SNRI within 1 year before that prescription date. Citalopram, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, paroxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine were the prespecified SSRI/SNRIs included in the study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any benzodiazepine (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI and benzodiazepine therapy. Alprazolam, chlordiazepoxide, clonazepam, clorazepate, diazepam, estazolam, flurazepam, lorazepam, oxazepam, temazepam, and triazolam were the prespecified benzodiazepines included in the study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any opioid (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI and opioid therapy. Codeine, fentanyl, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, levorphanol, meperidine, methadone, morphine, oxymorphone, pentazocine, propoxyphene, and tramadol were the prespecified opioids included in this study.

Patients who received at least 1 outpatient prescription for any benzodiazepine and any opioid (minimum 30-day supply) within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were determined to be on concurrent SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy.

The index date was defined as the first date of prescription overlap. If there was no benzodiazepine or opioid prescription within 1 year after the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date, the patient was categorized as being on SSRI/SNRI monotherapy, and the index date was the date of the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription. For each patient, hospitalization data from the 2-year period after the index date were evaluated.

Outcomes and Data Collection

For evaluation of the primary outcome (2-year overall hospitalization risk), the number of unique mental health and medical/surgical hospitalizations was identified by the number of discharge summaries documented in the patient chart during the evaluation period. Time to first hospitalization was recorded for the survival data analysis. Secondary outcomes were mental health hospitalization risk, medical/surgical hospitalization risk, and all-cause mortality within 2 years.

Demographic data that were collected included age, sex, comorbid mental health disorders, comorbid SUDs, and concomitant use of psychotropic medications at index date (baseline). Select comorbid mental health disorders (anxiety, schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder) and substance use disorders (alcohol, opioid, illicit drug) also were identified. Data on insomnia and pain comorbidities (headaches or migraines; neuropathy; head, neck, back, arthritis, or joint pain) were collected, as these comorbidities could be indications for prescribing benzodiazepines and opioids. Concomitant baseline use of classes of psychotropic medications (antipsychotics, non-SSRI/SNRI antidepressants, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, nonbenzodiazepine sedatives/hypnotics) also were documented. Last, hospitalizations within 6 months before the initial SSRI/SNRI prescription date were noted.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze all baseline demographic data. Continuous measures were evaluated with 1-way analyses of variance and post hoc Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons, and categorical measures with contingency tables and χ² tests or Fisher exact tests. When the overall χ² test was significant across all 4 study groups, post hoc comparisons were performed between the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group and each other group with Bonferroni adjusted for 3 comparisons.

Unadjusted and adjusted Weibull proportional hazard regression models were used to estimate hospitalization risk within 2 years after the index date for the different study groups with the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group as the referent. Robust standard errors were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Weibull model (and not the Cox model) was used because it does not assume hazard remains constant over time, which is appropriate in this instance, as the risk of an adverse event (AE) may be higher when first starting a medication or combination of medications relative to when doses are stabilized. Models were adjusted for age, sex, baseline mental health disorders, and baseline psychotropic medications. As earlier hospitalizations showed evidence of effect modification when this covariate was tested, hazard analyses were limited to patients not previously hospitalized.

The effect size of differences in hospitalization risk meeting statistical significance was assessed by estimating the number needed to harm (NNH) and 95% CIs (not shown) to observe 1 additional hospitalization in each medication group relative to the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group over a 90-day period. A 95% CI for NNH that did not include 0 indicated the NNH was significant at the .05 level.¹⁰ All-cause mortality was evaluated with the Fisher exact test with post hoc Bonferroni-corrected comparisons as appropriate.

Results

Of 1,703 patients screened, 613 met all study inclusion criteria (Figure 1). 

Baseline characteristics revealed no significant differences between groups in age or comorbid depression, schizophrenia, or SUDs (Table 1). 

With the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group as the referent, all concurrent therapy groups were at significantly increased risk for overall hospitalization within 2 years after the index date (Tables 2 & 3, Figure 2). 

Risk for mental health hospitalization was significantly increased in all concurrent therapy groups relative to the referent group.

Discussion

In 2013, Hawkins and colleagues evaluated hospitalization risk in veterans treated for PTSD within the Northwest VISN 20 between 2004 and 2010.¹¹ Compared with patients treated with only an SSRI or SNRI, those treated with 1 of those medications and a benzodiazepine were at significantly higher risk for overall hospitalization (AHR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.38-2.32; P < .001) and mental health hospitalization (AHR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.37-2.53; P < .001). Furthermore, those prescribed a benzodiazepine and an opioid along with an SSRI or SNRI were at higher risk for overall hospitalization (AHR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.22-4.00; P < .001), mental health hospitalization (AHR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.35-2.98; P < .01), medical/surgical hospitalization (AHR, 4.86; 95% CI, 3.30-7.14; P < .001), and ED visits (AHR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.53-2.65; P < .001).

Findings from the present study, which covered a period after the newest PTSD guideline was released,support findings reported by Hawkins and colleagues in their retrospective cohort study covering an earlier period.^2,11 In the present study, compared with the monotherapy group, the SSRI/SNRI and benzodiazepine therapy group and the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group were at higher risk for both overall hospitalization and mental health hospitalization within 2 years. However, in a subset of PTSD patients prescribed opioids along with first-line pharmacotherapy, this study found that overall, mental health, and medical/surgical hospitalizations were significantly increased as well. Furthermore, this study found 2-year mortality was significantly higher for the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group than for the SSRI/SNRI monotherapy group.

Adjusted hazard ratios were higher in the present study than those in the study by Hawkins and colleagues,but CIs were wider as well.¹¹ These differences may be attributable to the relatively smaller sample size of the present study and may explain why the HR was higher for the SSRI/SNRI and opioid therapy group than for the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group.

Nevertheless, these results support the growing body of evidence establishing the many risks for AEs when benzodiazepines and opioids are prescribed in the setting of PTSD. Unfortunately, it seems that, against clear guideline recommendations and literature findings, these medications still are being prescribed to this vulnerable, high-risk population.

In the last few months of 2013, the VA health care system launched 2 important medication safety initiatives. The Psychotropic Drug Safety Initiative (PDSI) was established as a quality improvement initiative for evidence-based provision of psychotropic medications. One PDSI metric in particular focused on reducing the proportion of veterans with PTSD being treated with benzodiazepines. The Opioid Safety Initiative (OSI) came as a response to a dramatic increase in the number of fatal overdoses related to prescription opioids—an increase linked to an unprecedented jump in opioid use for nonmalignant pain. As the present study’s inclusion cutoff date of August 1, 2013, preceded the debut of both PDSI and OSI, the benzodiazepine and opioid prescription rates reported here might be higher than those currently being found under the 2 initiatives.

Limitations

This study had several limitations that might affect the interpretation or generalizability of findings. Requiring at least a 30-day supply for prescription eligibility was an attempt to focus on chronic use of medications rather than on, for example, onetime supplies of opioids for dental procedures. However, prescription fill history was not assessed. Therefore, patients could have been included in certain study groups even if their SSRI, SNRI, benzodiazepine, or opioid prescription was not refilled. Furthermore, only VA medical records were used; non-VA prescriptions were not captured.

In addition, this study was limited to patients who at bare minimum were prescribed an SSRI or an SNRI. Some patients may have been prescribed a benzodiazepine and/or an opioid but were not on appropriate first-line pharmacotherapy for PTSD. These patients were excluded from the study, and their relative hospitalization risk went unexplored. Therefore, the magnitude of the issue at hand might have been underestimated.

Although psychotherapy is a first-line treatment option for PTSD, the study did not assess the potential impact of psychotherapy on outcomes or the groups’ relative proportions of patients undergoing psychotherapy. It is unknown whether the groups were equivalent at baseline in regards to psychotherapy participation rates.

This study did not characterize the specific reasons for hospitalization beyond whether it was for a mental health or a medical/surgical issue; thus, no distinction was made between hospitalizations for an elective procedure and hospitalizations for a drug overdose or an injury. Investigators could characterize admission diagnoses to better assess whether hospitalizations are truly associated with study medications or whether patients are being hospitalized for unrelated reasons. In addition, they could elucidate the true nature of hospitalization risk associated with SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid use by comparing admission diagnoses made before and after initiation of these pharmacologic therapies.

This study also could not assess outcomes for patients who presented to the ED but were not admitted. If the hospital’s floor and ED beds were at full capacity, some patients might have been transferred to an outside facility. However, this scenario is not common at SAVAHCS, where the study was conducted.

Although some comorbid conditions were noted, the study did not evaluate whether its patients had a compelling indication for benzodiazepines in particular. Opioid use is very limited to the treatment of pain, and the majority of the patients on opioid therapy in this study had a diagnosed pain syndrome.

Because of the study’s sample size and power limitations, patients were eligible to be included in a concurrent therapy group if a benzodiazepine, an opioid, or both were added no later than 1 year after SSRI/SNRI initiation. This gap of up to 1 year might have introduced some variability in exposure to risk from earlier prescribed medications. However, sensitivity analyses were performed with multiple constructed Weibull models of time to hospitalization based on subsets with varying overlapping medication gaps. Analyses revealed relatively stable HRs, suggesting that potential bias did not occur.

Future Directions

Investigators could explore the higher all-cause mortality rates in the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group, as this study did not assess cause of death in these patients. Whether any patients died of reasons directly attributable to benzodiazepines or opioids is unknown.

That SSRIs and SNRIs are the only established first-line pharmacologic treatment options for PTSD symptoms partly accounts for the widespread use of benzodiazepines in this population. For that reason, beyond characterizing the many risks associated with using benzodiazepines to manage these symptoms, there is a huge need to research the viability of other pharmacologic agents in treating PTSD. This is especially important given the slower onset to efficacy of the SSRIs and SNRIs; per estimates, only up to 60% of patients respond to SSRIs, and 20% to 30% achieve full remission of PTSD.¹² Furthermore, these rates likely are even lower for combat veterans than those for the general population. Several trials discussed in a 2009 guideline review of the treatment of patients with acute stress disorder and PTSD have called into question the efficacy of SSRIs for combat-related PTSD.¹³ In these randomized, controlled trials, change in PTSD symptom severity as measured with CAPS was not significantly reduced with SSRIs compared with placebo.

A systematic review revealed that, of the nonantidepressants used as adjuncts in treating patients who do not achieve remission with SSRIs, the atypical antipsychotic risperidone may have the strongest supporting evidence.¹² However, the present study found high rates of antipsychotic use in the SSRI/SNRI, benzodiazepine, and opioid therapy group, which also had the highest all-cause mortality rate. The safety of risperidone as an alternative treatment needs further evaluation.

Some prospective studies have suggested that the α₁ blockers doxazosin and prazosin, the latter of which is commonly used for PTSD nightmares, also may improve PTSD symptoms as assessed by CAPS.^14,15 Although these results are promising, the trials to date have been conducted with relatively small sample sizes.

With more veterans being treated for PTSD within the VA health care system, the central treatment goal remains: Adequately address the symptoms of PTSD while minimizing the harm caused by medications. Prescribers should limit benzodiazepine and opioid use in this population and consider safer nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic treatment options when possible.

Conclusion

Combat veterans with PTSD who are prescribed benzodiazepines and/or opioids in addition to first-line pharmacotherapy are at significantly increased risk for overall and mental health hospitalization.

Click here to read the digital edition.

The primary symptoms of PTSD are recurrent and include intrusive memories and dreams of the traumatic events, flashbacks, hypervigilance, irritability, sleep disturbances, and persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event. According to the National Comorbidity Survey, the estimated lifetime prevalence of PTSD among adults is 6.8% and is more common in women (9.7%) than men (3.6%).² Among veterans, the prevalence of PTSD has been reported as:

• 31% among male Vietnam veterans (lifetime)
• 10% among Gulf War veterans
• 14% among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.³

Why is PTSD overlooked in substance use?

Among individuals with SUD, 10% to 63% have comorbid PTSD.⁴ A recent report underscores the complexity and challenges of SUD–PTSD comorbidity.⁵ Most PTSD patients with comorbid SUD receive treatment only for SUD and the PTSD symptoms often are unaddressed.⁵ Those suffering from PTSD often abuse alcohol because they might consider it to be a coping strategy. Alcohol reduces hyperactivation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex caused by re-experiencing PTSD symptoms. Other substances of abuse, such as Cannabis, could suppress PTSD symptoms through alternate mechanisms (eg, endocannabinoid receptors). All of these could mask PTSD symptoms, which can delay diagnosis and treatment.

SUD is the tip of the “SUD-PTSD iceberg.” Some clinicians tend to focus on detoxification while completely ignoring the underlying psychopathology of SUD, which may be PTSD. Even during detoxification, PTSD should be aggressively treated.⁶ Lastly, practice guidelines for managing SUD–PTSD comorbidity are lacking.

Targeting mechanisms of action

Noradrenergic mechanisms have been strongly implicated in the pathophysiology of PTSD. However, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as sertraline and paroxetine, are the only FDA-approved pharmacotherapy options for PTSD, although their efficacy is limited, perhaps because they are serotonergic.

Prazosin, an alpha-1 (α-1) adrenergic antagonist that is FDA-approved for hypertension and benign prostatic hypertrophy, has been studied for treating nightmares in PTSD.⁷ Prazosin has shown efficacy for nightmares in PTSD and other daytime symptoms, such as flashbacks, hypervigilance, and irritability.⁸ Several studies support the efficacy of prazosin in persons suffering from PTSD.^9-11 Use of lower dosages in clinical trials might explain why prazosin did not separate from placebo in some studies. (See Table summarizing studies of prazosin dosing for PTSD.)

In a study of 12,844 veterans, the mean maximum prazosin dosage reached in the first year of treatment was 3.6 mg/d, and only 14% of patients reached the minimum Veterans Affairs recommended dosage of 6 mg/d.¹⁷ The most recent (March 2009) American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines recommend prazosin, 3 to 15 mg at bedtime.¹⁸

Prazosin has a short half-life of 2 to 3 hours and duration of action of 6 to 10 hours. Therefore, its use is limited to 2 or 3 times daily dosing. Higher (30 to 50 mg) and more frequent (2 to 3 times per day) dosages^8,12,13 might be needed because of the drug’s short half-life.

Doxazosin. Another α-1 adrenergic drug, doxazosin, 8 to 16 mg/d, has shown benefit for PTSD as well.^14,15 Doxazosin, which has a longer half-life (16 to 30 hours), requires only once-daily dosing.¹⁶ The most common side effects of prazosin and doxazosin are dizziness, headache, and drowsiness; syncope has been reported but is rare.

Prazosin and doxazosin also are used to treat substance abuse, such as alcohol use disorder^19-21 and cocaine use disorder.^22,23 This “two birds with one stone” approach could become more common in clinical practice.

Until a major breakthrough in PTSD treatment emerges, prazosin and doxazosin, although off-label, are reasonable treatment approaches.

The primary symptoms of PTSD are recurrent and include intrusive memories and dreams of the traumatic events, flashbacks, hypervigilance, irritability, sleep disturbances, and persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event. According to the National Comorbidity Survey, the estimated lifetime prevalence of PTSD among adults is 6.8% and is more common in women (9.7%) than men (3.6%).² Among veterans, the prevalence of PTSD has been reported as:

• 31% among male Vietnam veterans (lifetime)
• 10% among Gulf War veterans
• 14% among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.³

Why is PTSD overlooked in substance use?

Among individuals with SUD, 10% to 63% have comorbid PTSD.⁴ A recent report underscores the complexity and challenges of SUD–PTSD comorbidity.⁵ Most PTSD patients with comorbid SUD receive treatment only for SUD and the PTSD symptoms often are unaddressed.⁵ Those suffering from PTSD often abuse alcohol because they might consider it to be a coping strategy. Alcohol reduces hyperactivation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex caused by re-experiencing PTSD symptoms. Other substances of abuse, such as Cannabis, could suppress PTSD symptoms through alternate mechanisms (eg, endocannabinoid receptors). All of these could mask PTSD symptoms, which can delay diagnosis and treatment.

SUD is the tip of the “SUD-PTSD iceberg.” Some clinicians tend to focus on detoxification while completely ignoring the underlying psychopathology of SUD, which may be PTSD. Even during detoxification, PTSD should be aggressively treated.⁶ Lastly, practice guidelines for managing SUD–PTSD comorbidity are lacking.

Targeting mechanisms of action

Noradrenergic mechanisms have been strongly implicated in the pathophysiology of PTSD. However, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as sertraline and paroxetine, are the only FDA-approved pharmacotherapy options for PTSD, although their efficacy is limited, perhaps because they are serotonergic.

Prazosin, an alpha-1 (α-1) adrenergic antagonist that is FDA-approved for hypertension and benign prostatic hypertrophy, has been studied for treating nightmares in PTSD.⁷ Prazosin has shown efficacy for nightmares in PTSD and other daytime symptoms, such as flashbacks, hypervigilance, and irritability.⁸ Several studies support the efficacy of prazosin in persons suffering from PTSD.^9-11 Use of lower dosages in clinical trials might explain why prazosin did not separate from placebo in some studies. (See Table summarizing studies of prazosin dosing for PTSD.)

In a study of 12,844 veterans, the mean maximum prazosin dosage reached in the first year of treatment was 3.6 mg/d, and only 14% of patients reached the minimum Veterans Affairs recommended dosage of 6 mg/d.¹⁷ The most recent (March 2009) American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines recommend prazosin, 3 to 15 mg at bedtime.¹⁸

Prazosin has a short half-life of 2 to 3 hours and duration of action of 6 to 10 hours. Therefore, its use is limited to 2 or 3 times daily dosing. Higher (30 to 50 mg) and more frequent (2 to 3 times per day) dosages^8,12,13 might be needed because of the drug’s short half-life.

Doxazosin. Another α-1 adrenergic drug, doxazosin, 8 to 16 mg/d, has shown benefit for PTSD as well.^14,15 Doxazosin, which has a longer half-life (16 to 30 hours), requires only once-daily dosing.¹⁶ The most common side effects of prazosin and doxazosin are dizziness, headache, and drowsiness; syncope has been reported but is rare.

Prazosin and doxazosin also are used to treat substance abuse, such as alcohol use disorder^19-21 and cocaine use disorder.^22,23 This “two birds with one stone” approach could become more common in clinical practice.

Until a major breakthrough in PTSD treatment emerges, prazosin and doxazosin, although off-label, are reasonable treatment approaches.

The primary symptoms of PTSD are recurrent and include intrusive memories and dreams of the traumatic events, flashbacks, hypervigilance, irritability, sleep disturbances, and persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event. According to the National Comorbidity Survey, the estimated lifetime prevalence of PTSD among adults is 6.8% and is more common in women (9.7%) than men (3.6%).² Among veterans, the prevalence of PTSD has been reported as:

• 31% among male Vietnam veterans (lifetime)
• 10% among Gulf War veterans
• 14% among Iraq and Afghanistan veterans.³

Why is PTSD overlooked in substance use?

Among individuals with SUD, 10% to 63% have comorbid PTSD.⁴ A recent report underscores the complexity and challenges of SUD–PTSD comorbidity.⁵ Most PTSD patients with comorbid SUD receive treatment only for SUD and the PTSD symptoms often are unaddressed.⁵ Those suffering from PTSD often abuse alcohol because they might consider it to be a coping strategy. Alcohol reduces hyperactivation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex caused by re-experiencing PTSD symptoms. Other substances of abuse, such as Cannabis, could suppress PTSD symptoms through alternate mechanisms (eg, endocannabinoid receptors). All of these could mask PTSD symptoms, which can delay diagnosis and treatment.

SUD is the tip of the “SUD-PTSD iceberg.” Some clinicians tend to focus on detoxification while completely ignoring the underlying psychopathology of SUD, which may be PTSD. Even during detoxification, PTSD should be aggressively treated.⁶ Lastly, practice guidelines for managing SUD–PTSD comorbidity are lacking.

Targeting mechanisms of action

Noradrenergic mechanisms have been strongly implicated in the pathophysiology of PTSD. However, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, such as sertraline and paroxetine, are the only FDA-approved pharmacotherapy options for PTSD, although their efficacy is limited, perhaps because they are serotonergic.

Prazosin, an alpha-1 (α-1) adrenergic antagonist that is FDA-approved for hypertension and benign prostatic hypertrophy, has been studied for treating nightmares in PTSD.⁷ Prazosin has shown efficacy for nightmares in PTSD and other daytime symptoms, such as flashbacks, hypervigilance, and irritability.⁸ Several studies support the efficacy of prazosin in persons suffering from PTSD.^9-11 Use of lower dosages in clinical trials might explain why prazosin did not separate from placebo in some studies. (See Table summarizing studies of prazosin dosing for PTSD.)

In a study of 12,844 veterans, the mean maximum prazosin dosage reached in the first year of treatment was 3.6 mg/d, and only 14% of patients reached the minimum Veterans Affairs recommended dosage of 6 mg/d.¹⁷ The most recent (March 2009) American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines recommend prazosin, 3 to 15 mg at bedtime.¹⁸

Prazosin has a short half-life of 2 to 3 hours and duration of action of 6 to 10 hours. Therefore, its use is limited to 2 or 3 times daily dosing. Higher (30 to 50 mg) and more frequent (2 to 3 times per day) dosages^8,12,13 might be needed because of the drug’s short half-life.

Doxazosin. Another α-1 adrenergic drug, doxazosin, 8 to 16 mg/d, has shown benefit for PTSD as well.^14,15 Doxazosin, which has a longer half-life (16 to 30 hours), requires only once-daily dosing.¹⁶ The most common side effects of prazosin and doxazosin are dizziness, headache, and drowsiness; syncope has been reported but is rare.

Prazosin and doxazosin also are used to treat substance abuse, such as alcohol use disorder^19-21 and cocaine use disorder.^22,23 This “two birds with one stone” approach could become more common in clinical practice.

Until a major breakthrough in PTSD treatment emerges, prazosin and doxazosin, although off-label, are reasonable treatment approaches.

Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often report cognitive and sleep disturbances, such as insomnia and poor concentration. Although many patients report improvement with traditional evidence-based treatments, such as pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, it might be valuable to consider complementary or alternative therapies. Many patients seek treatments that they can self-administer as needed, at their convenience, particularly during symptom exacerbation. One treatment option is cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES).

As a medical device, CES has been cleared—rather than approved, as is the case for medications—by the FDA to treat depression, insomnia, and anxiety.¹ In the United States, CES devices require a prescription from a licensed health care practitioner, but they are available without a prescription in other countries. Cost for devices range from $600 to $1,200 and $10 to $20 for electrodes and contact solution. However, insurance companies that provide coverage for durable medical equipment might cover some or all of this expense.

How CES works

After applying contact solution, depending on the device used, the user attaches electrodes to the earlobes, mastoid processes, or other parts of the head that deliver a pulsed current, usually from AA batteries for 20 to 60 minutes.¹ The current causes cortical deactivation and could affect emotional regulation by influencing neurotransmission in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and limbic system.^1,2 CES increases cerebrospinal fluid levels of beta-endorphin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, and serotonin, which play a role in depression and anxiety.³

There are no known contraindications for CES. Adverse effects are rare, temporary, and mild; skin irritation, vertigo, or headache are the most common.¹

Evidence of efficacy

There are no double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of CES for PTSD. However, there is a case series and a large survey of patients supporting its use.

• In a case series, 2 patients reported improved occupational functioning and reduced PTSD symptoms after using CES, 100 to 500 mA, 20 to 60 minutes a day, 3 to 5 days per week.⁴
• In an online survey of 145 veterans and active-duty military personnel, 60% of individuals used CES for PTSD, and 20% of those individuals were not receiving pharmacotherapy.⁵ Participants reported at least a 25% reduction in symptoms using CES for at least 20 minutes, once or twice daily, with a current of 100 to 600 mA.⁵
• In an expert opinion, patients noted improved sleep quality and reduced alcohol and drug withdrawal symptoms after 20-minute treatments, twice a day, with a current of 2 mA. Currents could be increased to 4 mA, if there was no improvement after 2 weeks.⁶

Some patients experiencing exacerbation of PTSD symptoms could benefit from using the device for 1 hour several times a day until symptoms subside.⁵

Optimal strength, frequency, and duration of treatment vary among patients, and further studies are needed to assess these parameters as well as efficacy because definitive studies are currently lacking. CES has not always shown efficacy, such as in some patients with depression.⁷ Despite the limited evidence base, it is reasonable to consider CES for patients with PTSD. This modality might be helpful for patients who have comorbid pain, anxiety, and insomnia, or for those who seek a complementary, convenient, safe, self-administered treatment.

Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often report cognitive and sleep disturbances, such as insomnia and poor concentration. Although many patients report improvement with traditional evidence-based treatments, such as pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, it might be valuable to consider complementary or alternative therapies. Many patients seek treatments that they can self-administer as needed, at their convenience, particularly during symptom exacerbation. One treatment option is cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES).

As a medical device, CES has been cleared—rather than approved, as is the case for medications—by the FDA to treat depression, insomnia, and anxiety.¹ In the United States, CES devices require a prescription from a licensed health care practitioner, but they are available without a prescription in other countries. Cost for devices range from $600 to $1,200 and $10 to $20 for electrodes and contact solution. However, insurance companies that provide coverage for durable medical equipment might cover some or all of this expense.

How CES works

After applying contact solution, depending on the device used, the user attaches electrodes to the earlobes, mastoid processes, or other parts of the head that deliver a pulsed current, usually from AA batteries for 20 to 60 minutes.¹ The current causes cortical deactivation and could affect emotional regulation by influencing neurotransmission in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and limbic system.^1,2 CES increases cerebrospinal fluid levels of beta-endorphin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, and serotonin, which play a role in depression and anxiety.³

There are no known contraindications for CES. Adverse effects are rare, temporary, and mild; skin irritation, vertigo, or headache are the most common.¹

Evidence of efficacy

There are no double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of CES for PTSD. However, there is a case series and a large survey of patients supporting its use.

• In a case series, 2 patients reported improved occupational functioning and reduced PTSD symptoms after using CES, 100 to 500 mA, 20 to 60 minutes a day, 3 to 5 days per week.⁴
• In an online survey of 145 veterans and active-duty military personnel, 60% of individuals used CES for PTSD, and 20% of those individuals were not receiving pharmacotherapy.⁵ Participants reported at least a 25% reduction in symptoms using CES for at least 20 minutes, once or twice daily, with a current of 100 to 600 mA.⁵
• In an expert opinion, patients noted improved sleep quality and reduced alcohol and drug withdrawal symptoms after 20-minute treatments, twice a day, with a current of 2 mA. Currents could be increased to 4 mA, if there was no improvement after 2 weeks.⁶

Some patients experiencing exacerbation of PTSD symptoms could benefit from using the device for 1 hour several times a day until symptoms subside.⁵

Optimal strength, frequency, and duration of treatment vary among patients, and further studies are needed to assess these parameters as well as efficacy because definitive studies are currently lacking. CES has not always shown efficacy, such as in some patients with depression.⁷ Despite the limited evidence base, it is reasonable to consider CES for patients with PTSD. This modality might be helpful for patients who have comorbid pain, anxiety, and insomnia, or for those who seek a complementary, convenient, safe, self-administered treatment.

Individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) often report cognitive and sleep disturbances, such as insomnia and poor concentration. Although many patients report improvement with traditional evidence-based treatments, such as pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, it might be valuable to consider complementary or alternative therapies. Many patients seek treatments that they can self-administer as needed, at their convenience, particularly during symptom exacerbation. One treatment option is cranial electrotherapy stimulation (CES).

As a medical device, CES has been cleared—rather than approved, as is the case for medications—by the FDA to treat depression, insomnia, and anxiety.¹ In the United States, CES devices require a prescription from a licensed health care practitioner, but they are available without a prescription in other countries. Cost for devices range from $600 to $1,200 and $10 to $20 for electrodes and contact solution. However, insurance companies that provide coverage for durable medical equipment might cover some or all of this expense.

How CES works

After applying contact solution, depending on the device used, the user attaches electrodes to the earlobes, mastoid processes, or other parts of the head that deliver a pulsed current, usually from AA batteries for 20 to 60 minutes.¹ The current causes cortical deactivation and could affect emotional regulation by influencing neurotransmission in the thalamus, hypothalamus, and limbic system.^1,2 CES increases cerebrospinal fluid levels of beta-endorphin, adrenocorticotropic hormone, and serotonin, which play a role in depression and anxiety.³

There are no known contraindications for CES. Adverse effects are rare, temporary, and mild; skin irritation, vertigo, or headache are the most common.¹

Evidence of efficacy

There are no double-blind placebo-controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of CES for PTSD. However, there is a case series and a large survey of patients supporting its use.

• In a case series, 2 patients reported improved occupational functioning and reduced PTSD symptoms after using CES, 100 to 500 mA, 20 to 60 minutes a day, 3 to 5 days per week.⁴
• In an online survey of 145 veterans and active-duty military personnel, 60% of individuals used CES for PTSD, and 20% of those individuals were not receiving pharmacotherapy.⁵ Participants reported at least a 25% reduction in symptoms using CES for at least 20 minutes, once or twice daily, with a current of 100 to 600 mA.⁵
• In an expert opinion, patients noted improved sleep quality and reduced alcohol and drug withdrawal symptoms after 20-minute treatments, twice a day, with a current of 2 mA. Currents could be increased to 4 mA, if there was no improvement after 2 weeks.⁶

Some patients experiencing exacerbation of PTSD symptoms could benefit from using the device for 1 hour several times a day until symptoms subside.⁵

Optimal strength, frequency, and duration of treatment vary among patients, and further studies are needed to assess these parameters as well as efficacy because definitive studies are currently lacking. CES has not always shown efficacy, such as in some patients with depression.⁷ Despite the limited evidence base, it is reasonable to consider CES for patients with PTSD. This modality might be helpful for patients who have comorbid pain, anxiety, and insomnia, or for those who seek a complementary, convenient, safe, self-administered treatment.

VIENNA – What a difference a decade can make in the world of psychiatry.

Take, for example, the case of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, better known as MDMA or, when used recreationally, as ecstasy, the love drug.

“Ten years ago at pretty much every scientific meeting where MDMA was being discussed, people were looking to find problems with it. People were dredging around trying to vilify this drug, because there was a hope that it might cause brain damage, which would justify having made its use illicit. Ten years later, we’ve changed direction completely, from fear and hating MDMA to loving it. Now we’re talking about the possibility that MDMA might actually heal the brain, and restoring MDMA to the therapeutic armamentarium,” David Nutt, MD, observed at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

How MDMA works

The pharmacology of MDMA is complex, he continued. The drug is chiefly a serotonin-releasing agent and 5HT reuptake blocker, but it also acts as an agonist on alpha-adrenergic receptors, has muscarinic and histamine-blocking effects, and promotes release of oxytocin.

Animal studies have demonstrated that MDMA facilitates extinction of fear memories through a mechanism involving changes in levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Experience in humans has shown that the drug has diverse pro-social effects: It is activating, enhances mood, promotes more flexible thinking, boosts tactile experiences, and increases empathy, which in turn aids patients in bonding with their therapists.

Dr. Nutt and his coinvestigators performed the first whole-brain study of the effects of MDMA using functional MRI. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers used measurements obtained through arterial spin labeling and analysis of blood oxygen level–dependent resting state functional connectivity. The investigators documented that the marked increase in positive mood and decreased magnitude of negative personal memories produced by MDMA was accompanied by profound reduction of cerebral blood flow in the right amygdala and hippocampus. Cerebral blood flow also was reduced in the right medial temporal lobe, thalamus, and inferior visual cortex. MDMA also resulted in decreased amygdala-cortical connectivity (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Oct 15;78[8]:554-62; Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014 Apr;17[4]:527-40).

The changes in those particular brain systems are consistent with and most likely underlie the drug’s therapeutic effects, he said. Taken together, they could serve to assist a patient in re-engaging with traumatic memories with less interference from emotional centers, thereby helping to gain executive control of the memory of the trauma.

H. Valerie Curran, PhD, a coinvestigator in the brain imaging study, cautioned the rapt audience that while there are abundant favorable anecdotal reports from psychotherapists going back as far as the 1970s, the actual evidence base for MDMA as a therapeutic adjunct to psychotherapy for PTSD is still pretty thin. She noted that in their groundbreaking study, Dr. Mithoefer and his colleagues used an unconventional form of psychotherapy modeled on the LSD therapy developed by Stanislav Grof, MD, PhD. The two MDMA-assisted sessions were each 8 hours long and included shamanistic techniques and specialized breathing to promote diminished oxygen to the brain. Also, the patient sat on a futon listening to music with a male therapist on one side and a female therapist on the other. As a clinical psychologist herself, she assured the audience that this is not standard practice in her field.

Only one other randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy has been published to date (J Psychopharmacol. 2013 Jan;27[1]:40-52). With just 12 participants, it was too small to be conclusive. So there is a definite need for additional controlled studies on the interaction between MDMA and evidence-based forms of psychotherapy. Fortunately, additional clinical trials are ongoing, noted Dr. Curran, professor of psychopharmacology at University College London.

She presented highlights of a study she and her coinvestigators carried out to determine how MDMA affects the encoding and recall of emotional autobiographical memories, since the core of most psychotherapy for PTSD entails controlled revisiting of traumatic memories. The nonblinded study included a group of recreational MDMA users who – on two separate occasions, one under the influence of street-quality MDMA of uncertain dose and purity, the other on placebo – were tasked with responding to self-threatening scenarios, exposure to compassionate imagery, and a large series of positive and negative adjectives addressed at themselves or another person (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Sep;29[9]:961-70).

The investigators found that MDMA enhanced the emotional intensity, vividness, and positivity of the subjects’ best autobiographical memories while modestly reducing the negativity of their worst memories. Structured ratings of compassion markedly increased while on MDMA. Overall, the drug’s effects were similar to those obtained through rigorous cognitive training methods developed in venerable Eastern contemplative practices in pursuit of a compassionate mindset, according to Dr. Curran.

The study results suggest a mechanism by which MDMA might enhance psychotherapy not only by improving the therapeutic alliance but also by reducing self-referential emotional processing without diminishing declarative memory, she added.
 

Findings of Swiss studies

Matthias E. Liechti, MD, head of the psychopharmacology research unit at the University of Basel, explained that at present Switzerland is the only country in the world where it’s legal to prescribe MDMA. Ditto LSD. Psychiatrists can do so on a case-by-case basis outside of a clinical trial setting in patients with treatment-resistant PTSD or anxiety disorders.

Dr. Liechti and his coinvestigators are interested in examining how MDMA affects social cognition as assessed by outcome measures, including a structured face emotion recognition test, the multifaceted empathy test, and a sexual arousal task.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

VIENNA – What a difference a decade can make in the world of psychiatry.

Take, for example, the case of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, better known as MDMA or, when used recreationally, as ecstasy, the love drug.

“Ten years ago at pretty much every scientific meeting where MDMA was being discussed, people were looking to find problems with it. People were dredging around trying to vilify this drug, because there was a hope that it might cause brain damage, which would justify having made its use illicit. Ten years later, we’ve changed direction completely, from fear and hating MDMA to loving it. Now we’re talking about the possibility that MDMA might actually heal the brain, and restoring MDMA to the therapeutic armamentarium,” David Nutt, MD, observed at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

How MDMA works

The pharmacology of MDMA is complex, he continued. The drug is chiefly a serotonin-releasing agent and 5HT reuptake blocker, but it also acts as an agonist on alpha-adrenergic receptors, has muscarinic and histamine-blocking effects, and promotes release of oxytocin.

Animal studies have demonstrated that MDMA facilitates extinction of fear memories through a mechanism involving changes in levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Experience in humans has shown that the drug has diverse pro-social effects: It is activating, enhances mood, promotes more flexible thinking, boosts tactile experiences, and increases empathy, which in turn aids patients in bonding with their therapists.

Dr. Nutt and his coinvestigators performed the first whole-brain study of the effects of MDMA using functional MRI. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers used measurements obtained through arterial spin labeling and analysis of blood oxygen level–dependent resting state functional connectivity. The investigators documented that the marked increase in positive mood and decreased magnitude of negative personal memories produced by MDMA was accompanied by profound reduction of cerebral blood flow in the right amygdala and hippocampus. Cerebral blood flow also was reduced in the right medial temporal lobe, thalamus, and inferior visual cortex. MDMA also resulted in decreased amygdala-cortical connectivity (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Oct 15;78[8]:554-62; Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014 Apr;17[4]:527-40).

The changes in those particular brain systems are consistent with and most likely underlie the drug’s therapeutic effects, he said. Taken together, they could serve to assist a patient in re-engaging with traumatic memories with less interference from emotional centers, thereby helping to gain executive control of the memory of the trauma.

H. Valerie Curran, PhD, a coinvestigator in the brain imaging study, cautioned the rapt audience that while there are abundant favorable anecdotal reports from psychotherapists going back as far as the 1970s, the actual evidence base for MDMA as a therapeutic adjunct to psychotherapy for PTSD is still pretty thin. She noted that in their groundbreaking study, Dr. Mithoefer and his colleagues used an unconventional form of psychotherapy modeled on the LSD therapy developed by Stanislav Grof, MD, PhD. The two MDMA-assisted sessions were each 8 hours long and included shamanistic techniques and specialized breathing to promote diminished oxygen to the brain. Also, the patient sat on a futon listening to music with a male therapist on one side and a female therapist on the other. As a clinical psychologist herself, she assured the audience that this is not standard practice in her field.

Only one other randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy has been published to date (J Psychopharmacol. 2013 Jan;27[1]:40-52). With just 12 participants, it was too small to be conclusive. So there is a definite need for additional controlled studies on the interaction between MDMA and evidence-based forms of psychotherapy. Fortunately, additional clinical trials are ongoing, noted Dr. Curran, professor of psychopharmacology at University College London.

She presented highlights of a study she and her coinvestigators carried out to determine how MDMA affects the encoding and recall of emotional autobiographical memories, since the core of most psychotherapy for PTSD entails controlled revisiting of traumatic memories. The nonblinded study included a group of recreational MDMA users who – on two separate occasions, one under the influence of street-quality MDMA of uncertain dose and purity, the other on placebo – were tasked with responding to self-threatening scenarios, exposure to compassionate imagery, and a large series of positive and negative adjectives addressed at themselves or another person (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Sep;29[9]:961-70).

The investigators found that MDMA enhanced the emotional intensity, vividness, and positivity of the subjects’ best autobiographical memories while modestly reducing the negativity of their worst memories. Structured ratings of compassion markedly increased while on MDMA. Overall, the drug’s effects were similar to those obtained through rigorous cognitive training methods developed in venerable Eastern contemplative practices in pursuit of a compassionate mindset, according to Dr. Curran.

The study results suggest a mechanism by which MDMA might enhance psychotherapy not only by improving the therapeutic alliance but also by reducing self-referential emotional processing without diminishing declarative memory, she added.
 

Findings of Swiss studies

Matthias E. Liechti, MD, head of the psychopharmacology research unit at the University of Basel, explained that at present Switzerland is the only country in the world where it’s legal to prescribe MDMA. Ditto LSD. Psychiatrists can do so on a case-by-case basis outside of a clinical trial setting in patients with treatment-resistant PTSD or anxiety disorders.

Dr. Liechti and his coinvestigators are interested in examining how MDMA affects social cognition as assessed by outcome measures, including a structured face emotion recognition test, the multifaceted empathy test, and a sexual arousal task.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

VIENNA – What a difference a decade can make in the world of psychiatry.

Take, for example, the case of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine, better known as MDMA or, when used recreationally, as ecstasy, the love drug.

“Ten years ago at pretty much every scientific meeting where MDMA was being discussed, people were looking to find problems with it. People were dredging around trying to vilify this drug, because there was a hope that it might cause brain damage, which would justify having made its use illicit. Ten years later, we’ve changed direction completely, from fear and hating MDMA to loving it. Now we’re talking about the possibility that MDMA might actually heal the brain, and restoring MDMA to the therapeutic armamentarium,” David Nutt, MD, observed at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

How MDMA works

The pharmacology of MDMA is complex, he continued. The drug is chiefly a serotonin-releasing agent and 5HT reuptake blocker, but it also acts as an agonist on alpha-adrenergic receptors, has muscarinic and histamine-blocking effects, and promotes release of oxytocin.

Animal studies have demonstrated that MDMA facilitates extinction of fear memories through a mechanism involving changes in levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor. Experience in humans has shown that the drug has diverse pro-social effects: It is activating, enhances mood, promotes more flexible thinking, boosts tactile experiences, and increases empathy, which in turn aids patients in bonding with their therapists.

Dr. Nutt and his coinvestigators performed the first whole-brain study of the effects of MDMA using functional MRI. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study in healthy volunteers used measurements obtained through arterial spin labeling and analysis of blood oxygen level–dependent resting state functional connectivity. The investigators documented that the marked increase in positive mood and decreased magnitude of negative personal memories produced by MDMA was accompanied by profound reduction of cerebral blood flow in the right amygdala and hippocampus. Cerebral blood flow also was reduced in the right medial temporal lobe, thalamus, and inferior visual cortex. MDMA also resulted in decreased amygdala-cortical connectivity (Biol Psychiatry. 2015 Oct 15;78[8]:554-62; Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014 Apr;17[4]:527-40).

The changes in those particular brain systems are consistent with and most likely underlie the drug’s therapeutic effects, he said. Taken together, they could serve to assist a patient in re-engaging with traumatic memories with less interference from emotional centers, thereby helping to gain executive control of the memory of the trauma.

H. Valerie Curran, PhD, a coinvestigator in the brain imaging study, cautioned the rapt audience that while there are abundant favorable anecdotal reports from psychotherapists going back as far as the 1970s, the actual evidence base for MDMA as a therapeutic adjunct to psychotherapy for PTSD is still pretty thin. She noted that in their groundbreaking study, Dr. Mithoefer and his colleagues used an unconventional form of psychotherapy modeled on the LSD therapy developed by Stanislav Grof, MD, PhD. The two MDMA-assisted sessions were each 8 hours long and included shamanistic techniques and specialized breathing to promote diminished oxygen to the brain. Also, the patient sat on a futon listening to music with a male therapist on one side and a female therapist on the other. As a clinical psychologist herself, she assured the audience that this is not standard practice in her field.

Only one other randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy has been published to date (J Psychopharmacol. 2013 Jan;27[1]:40-52). With just 12 participants, it was too small to be conclusive. So there is a definite need for additional controlled studies on the interaction between MDMA and evidence-based forms of psychotherapy. Fortunately, additional clinical trials are ongoing, noted Dr. Curran, professor of psychopharmacology at University College London.

She presented highlights of a study she and her coinvestigators carried out to determine how MDMA affects the encoding and recall of emotional autobiographical memories, since the core of most psychotherapy for PTSD entails controlled revisiting of traumatic memories. The nonblinded study included a group of recreational MDMA users who – on two separate occasions, one under the influence of street-quality MDMA of uncertain dose and purity, the other on placebo – were tasked with responding to self-threatening scenarios, exposure to compassionate imagery, and a large series of positive and negative adjectives addressed at themselves or another person (J Psychopharmacol. 2015 Sep;29[9]:961-70).

The investigators found that MDMA enhanced the emotional intensity, vividness, and positivity of the subjects’ best autobiographical memories while modestly reducing the negativity of their worst memories. Structured ratings of compassion markedly increased while on MDMA. Overall, the drug’s effects were similar to those obtained through rigorous cognitive training methods developed in venerable Eastern contemplative practices in pursuit of a compassionate mindset, according to Dr. Curran.

The study results suggest a mechanism by which MDMA might enhance psychotherapy not only by improving the therapeutic alliance but also by reducing self-referential emotional processing without diminishing declarative memory, she added.
 

Findings of Swiss studies

Matthias E. Liechti, MD, head of the psychopharmacology research unit at the University of Basel, explained that at present Switzerland is the only country in the world where it’s legal to prescribe MDMA. Ditto LSD. Psychiatrists can do so on a case-by-case basis outside of a clinical trial setting in patients with treatment-resistant PTSD or anxiety disorders.

Dr. Liechti and his coinvestigators are interested in examining how MDMA affects social cognition as assessed by outcome measures, including a structured face emotion recognition test, the multifaceted empathy test, and a sexual arousal task.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com