User login
More on psilocybin
I would like to remark on “Psychedelics for treating psychiatric disorders: Are they safe?” (
The Oregon Psilocybin Services that will begin in 2023 are not specific to therapeutic use; this is a common misconception. These are specifically referred to as “psilocybin services” in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), and psilocybin facilitators are required to limit their scope such that they are not practicing psychotherapy or other interventions, even if they do have a medical or psychotherapy background. The intention of the Oregon Psilocybin Services rollout was that these services would not be of the medical model. In the spirit of this, services do not require a medical diagnosis or referral, and services are not a medical or clinical treatment (OAR 333-333-5040). Additionally, services cannot be provided in a health care facility (OAR 441). Facilitators receive robust training as defined by Oregon law, and licensed facilitators provide this information during preparation for services. When discussing this model on a large public scale, I have noticed substantial misconceptions; it is imperative that we refer to these services as they are defined so that individuals with mental health conditions who seek them are aware that such services are different from psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy. Instead, Oregon Psilocybin Services might be better categorized as supported psilocybin use.
I would like to remark on “Psychedelics for treating psychiatric disorders: Are they safe?” (
The Oregon Psilocybin Services that will begin in 2023 are not specific to therapeutic use; this is a common misconception. These are specifically referred to as “psilocybin services” in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), and psilocybin facilitators are required to limit their scope such that they are not practicing psychotherapy or other interventions, even if they do have a medical or psychotherapy background. The intention of the Oregon Psilocybin Services rollout was that these services would not be of the medical model. In the spirit of this, services do not require a medical diagnosis or referral, and services are not a medical or clinical treatment (OAR 333-333-5040). Additionally, services cannot be provided in a health care facility (OAR 441). Facilitators receive robust training as defined by Oregon law, and licensed facilitators provide this information during preparation for services. When discussing this model on a large public scale, I have noticed substantial misconceptions; it is imperative that we refer to these services as they are defined so that individuals with mental health conditions who seek them are aware that such services are different from psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy. Instead, Oregon Psilocybin Services might be better categorized as supported psilocybin use.
I would like to remark on “Psychedelics for treating psychiatric disorders: Are they safe?” (
The Oregon Psilocybin Services that will begin in 2023 are not specific to therapeutic use; this is a common misconception. These are specifically referred to as “psilocybin services” in the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), and psilocybin facilitators are required to limit their scope such that they are not practicing psychotherapy or other interventions, even if they do have a medical or psychotherapy background. The intention of the Oregon Psilocybin Services rollout was that these services would not be of the medical model. In the spirit of this, services do not require a medical diagnosis or referral, and services are not a medical or clinical treatment (OAR 333-333-5040). Additionally, services cannot be provided in a health care facility (OAR 441). Facilitators receive robust training as defined by Oregon law, and licensed facilitators provide this information during preparation for services. When discussing this model on a large public scale, I have noticed substantial misconceptions; it is imperative that we refer to these services as they are defined so that individuals with mental health conditions who seek them are aware that such services are different from psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy. Instead, Oregon Psilocybin Services might be better categorized as supported psilocybin use.
Anxiety sensitivity fuels depression in dissociative identity disorder
Anxiety sensitivity refers to fear of the signs and symptoms of anxiety based on the individual’s belief that the signs of anxiety will have harmful consequences, wrote Xi Pan, LICSW, MPA, of McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and colleagues.
Anxiety sensitivity can include cognitive, physical, and social elements: for example, fear that the inability to focus signals mental illness, fear that a racing heart might cause a heart attack, or fear that exhibiting anxiety signs in public (e.g., sweaty palms) will cause embarrassment, the researchers said.
Previous studies have found associations between anxiety sensitivity and panic attacks, and anxiety sensitivity has been shown to contribute to worsening symptoms in patients with anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and trauma-related disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder. However, “anxiety sensitivity has not been studied in individuals with complex dissociative disorders such as dissociative identity disorder (DID)” – who often have co-occurring PTSD and depression, the researchers said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the authors analyzed data from 21 treatment-seeking adult women with histories of childhood trauma, current PTSD, and dissociative identity disorder. Participants completed the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI), Beck Depression Inventory-II, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation, and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.
Anxiety sensitivity in cognitive, physical, and social domains was assessed using ASI subscales.
Pearson correlations showed that symptoms of depression were significantly associated with anxiety sensitivity total scores and across all anxiety subscales. However, no direct associations appeared between anxiety sensitivity and PTSD or severe dissociative symptoms.
In a multiple regression analysis, the ASI cognitive subscale was a positive predictor of depressive symptoms, although physical and social subscale scores were not.
The researchers also tested for an indirect relationship between anxiety sensitivity and dissociative symptoms through depression. “Specifically, more severe ASI cognitive concerns were associated with more depressive symptoms, and more depressive symptoms predicted more severe pathological dissociation symptoms,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by the inability to show a direct causal relationship between anxiety sensitivity and depression, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the small sample size, use of self-reports, and the population of mainly White women, which may not generalize to other populations, they said.
However, the results represent the first empirical investigation of the relationship between anxiety sensitivity and DID symptoms, and support the value of assessment for anxiety sensitivity in DID patients in clinical practice, they said.
“If high levels of anxiety sensitivity are identified, the individual may benefit from targeted interventions, which in turn may alleviate some symptoms of depression and dissociation in DID,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Julia Kasparian Fund for Neuroscience Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Anxiety sensitivity refers to fear of the signs and symptoms of anxiety based on the individual’s belief that the signs of anxiety will have harmful consequences, wrote Xi Pan, LICSW, MPA, of McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and colleagues.
Anxiety sensitivity can include cognitive, physical, and social elements: for example, fear that the inability to focus signals mental illness, fear that a racing heart might cause a heart attack, or fear that exhibiting anxiety signs in public (e.g., sweaty palms) will cause embarrassment, the researchers said.
Previous studies have found associations between anxiety sensitivity and panic attacks, and anxiety sensitivity has been shown to contribute to worsening symptoms in patients with anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and trauma-related disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder. However, “anxiety sensitivity has not been studied in individuals with complex dissociative disorders such as dissociative identity disorder (DID)” – who often have co-occurring PTSD and depression, the researchers said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the authors analyzed data from 21 treatment-seeking adult women with histories of childhood trauma, current PTSD, and dissociative identity disorder. Participants completed the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI), Beck Depression Inventory-II, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation, and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.
Anxiety sensitivity in cognitive, physical, and social domains was assessed using ASI subscales.
Pearson correlations showed that symptoms of depression were significantly associated with anxiety sensitivity total scores and across all anxiety subscales. However, no direct associations appeared between anxiety sensitivity and PTSD or severe dissociative symptoms.
In a multiple regression analysis, the ASI cognitive subscale was a positive predictor of depressive symptoms, although physical and social subscale scores were not.
The researchers also tested for an indirect relationship between anxiety sensitivity and dissociative symptoms through depression. “Specifically, more severe ASI cognitive concerns were associated with more depressive symptoms, and more depressive symptoms predicted more severe pathological dissociation symptoms,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by the inability to show a direct causal relationship between anxiety sensitivity and depression, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the small sample size, use of self-reports, and the population of mainly White women, which may not generalize to other populations, they said.
However, the results represent the first empirical investigation of the relationship between anxiety sensitivity and DID symptoms, and support the value of assessment for anxiety sensitivity in DID patients in clinical practice, they said.
“If high levels of anxiety sensitivity are identified, the individual may benefit from targeted interventions, which in turn may alleviate some symptoms of depression and dissociation in DID,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Julia Kasparian Fund for Neuroscience Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Anxiety sensitivity refers to fear of the signs and symptoms of anxiety based on the individual’s belief that the signs of anxiety will have harmful consequences, wrote Xi Pan, LICSW, MPA, of McLean Hospital, Belmont, Mass., and colleagues.
Anxiety sensitivity can include cognitive, physical, and social elements: for example, fear that the inability to focus signals mental illness, fear that a racing heart might cause a heart attack, or fear that exhibiting anxiety signs in public (e.g., sweaty palms) will cause embarrassment, the researchers said.
Previous studies have found associations between anxiety sensitivity and panic attacks, and anxiety sensitivity has been shown to contribute to worsening symptoms in patients with anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, and trauma-related disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder. However, “anxiety sensitivity has not been studied in individuals with complex dissociative disorders such as dissociative identity disorder (DID)” – who often have co-occurring PTSD and depression, the researchers said.
In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the authors analyzed data from 21 treatment-seeking adult women with histories of childhood trauma, current PTSD, and dissociative identity disorder. Participants completed the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI), Beck Depression Inventory-II, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, Multidimensional Inventory of Dissociation, and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5.
Anxiety sensitivity in cognitive, physical, and social domains was assessed using ASI subscales.
Pearson correlations showed that symptoms of depression were significantly associated with anxiety sensitivity total scores and across all anxiety subscales. However, no direct associations appeared between anxiety sensitivity and PTSD or severe dissociative symptoms.
In a multiple regression analysis, the ASI cognitive subscale was a positive predictor of depressive symptoms, although physical and social subscale scores were not.
The researchers also tested for an indirect relationship between anxiety sensitivity and dissociative symptoms through depression. “Specifically, more severe ASI cognitive concerns were associated with more depressive symptoms, and more depressive symptoms predicted more severe pathological dissociation symptoms,” they wrote.
The findings were limited by the inability to show a direct causal relationship between anxiety sensitivity and depression, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the small sample size, use of self-reports, and the population of mainly White women, which may not generalize to other populations, they said.
However, the results represent the first empirical investigation of the relationship between anxiety sensitivity and DID symptoms, and support the value of assessment for anxiety sensitivity in DID patients in clinical practice, they said.
“If high levels of anxiety sensitivity are identified, the individual may benefit from targeted interventions, which in turn may alleviate some symptoms of depression and dissociation in DID,” the researchers concluded.
The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the Julia Kasparian Fund for Neuroscience Research. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
Medical student well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic
During the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic U.S. medical students were suspended from in-person clinical interaction. This decision was based on specific guidance from the Association of American Medical Colleges and subsequently implemented in medical schools across the United States.1 Our research project addressed students’ stress level before and after clinical in-person suspension and assessed medical students perceived COVID-19–related risk level. We were particularly curious to learn about students’ emotional struggles as they navigated the initial pedagogical uncertainty associated with the pandemic.
It is likely that heightened stress was greater than before and the rationale was likely multifactorial in nature.2
One key stressor U.S. medical students faced was the negative impacts of COVID-19 on medical education. U.S. Medical Licensing Examination exam-taking was severely impacted, and some students needed to reschedule their test dates because of increased restrictions at testing centers. Third-year medical students in particular were worried about how COVID-19 would influence their residency application; for example, in-person residency interviews and away rotations as fourth-year medical students. Another concern was not being able to be involved in clinical work during the direst stage of this public health emergency because of personal protective equipment shortages and attempts to reduce community spread of COVID-19.
Our study also showed that students had a relatively lower perceived risk level when it comes to COVID-19 than health care workers in the 2003 SARS epidemic, which we suspect is mostly attributable to the suspension of clinical in-person interaction. We also found that female gender and self-reported mental illness diagnosis were two risk factors for perceived stress level, consistent with our current literature.
The reality of clinical in-person inaction caused by PPE shortage and limited telehealth options, together with social isolation and uncertainty regarding future education opportunities, appear to have had a detrimental effect on medical students’ psychological wellbeing. This did not have to be the case. Some medical students found innovative ways to stay involved.
For example, in 2020 some of Dr. Zhang’s classmates helped proctor virtual group therapy sessions held by the local National Alliance on Mental Illness chapter. Medical students at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York were not only able to engage in telehealth but also join other task forces, such as PPE supply, distribution, and coordination, morale promotion, and administrative services.3 Finally, many medical students in New York volunteered in providing child care for frontline doctors to help relieve their burden.4 These actions, if implemented more widely, may have had a protective effect on the stress and well-being of medical students at that time.
While our study focused on the academic side of things, the personal impacts from COVID-19 need to be acknowledged – sickness from COVID-19 and its sequelae, family loss fromCOVID-19, financial struggle, and racial targeting of Asians to name a few. COVID-19 has influenced many families’ livelihood and changed our understanding of ourselves, others, and the world in unprecedented ways.
Fast forward to today – medical students are used to learning and living in a world with an ongoing pandemic, and medical education and residency application process have adapted to this new normal. The once-crippling uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 and disastrous PPE shortages have passed. Yet, COVID-19 continues to be a stressor. In fact, burnout related to “COVID-19 fatigue” has been on the rise and one recent national survey shows one in five physicians intends to leave practice within 2 years.5
Meanwhile, uncertainty continued to persist, as in August 2022 monkeypox was declared a public health emergency in the United States.6 What Dr. Zhang learned as a medical student during the initial months of COVID-19 continues to be relevant: connect with loved ones, understand the changing reality, process the emotions, recognize what is under one’s control, have a solution-oriented mindset, and be forgiving and patient with oneself and others.
Dr. Zhang is a second-year psychiatry resident physician at Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital/DC DBH, Washington. Dr. Himelhoch serves as professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. His research focuses on developing and studying the efficacy of innovative strategies aimed at improving the health and welfare among people with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders.
References
1. Association of American Medical Colleges. Important Guidance for Medical Students on Clinical Rotations During the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak. 2020 Mar 17.
2. Zhang Y et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022;313:114595. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114595.
3. Bahethi RR et al. Acad Med. 2021 Jun 1;96(6):859-63. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003863.
4. Krieger P and Goodnough A. Medical Students, Sidelined for Now, Find New Ways to Fight Coronavirus. The New York Times. 2020 Mar 23.
5. Abbasi J. JAMA. 2022 Apr 19;327(15):1435-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.5074.
6. Department of Health & Human Services. Biden-Harris Administration Bolsters Monkeypox Response; HHS Secretary Becerra Declares Public Health Emergency. 2022 Aug 4.
During the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic U.S. medical students were suspended from in-person clinical interaction. This decision was based on specific guidance from the Association of American Medical Colleges and subsequently implemented in medical schools across the United States.1 Our research project addressed students’ stress level before and after clinical in-person suspension and assessed medical students perceived COVID-19–related risk level. We were particularly curious to learn about students’ emotional struggles as they navigated the initial pedagogical uncertainty associated with the pandemic.
It is likely that heightened stress was greater than before and the rationale was likely multifactorial in nature.2
One key stressor U.S. medical students faced was the negative impacts of COVID-19 on medical education. U.S. Medical Licensing Examination exam-taking was severely impacted, and some students needed to reschedule their test dates because of increased restrictions at testing centers. Third-year medical students in particular were worried about how COVID-19 would influence their residency application; for example, in-person residency interviews and away rotations as fourth-year medical students. Another concern was not being able to be involved in clinical work during the direst stage of this public health emergency because of personal protective equipment shortages and attempts to reduce community spread of COVID-19.
Our study also showed that students had a relatively lower perceived risk level when it comes to COVID-19 than health care workers in the 2003 SARS epidemic, which we suspect is mostly attributable to the suspension of clinical in-person interaction. We also found that female gender and self-reported mental illness diagnosis were two risk factors for perceived stress level, consistent with our current literature.
The reality of clinical in-person inaction caused by PPE shortage and limited telehealth options, together with social isolation and uncertainty regarding future education opportunities, appear to have had a detrimental effect on medical students’ psychological wellbeing. This did not have to be the case. Some medical students found innovative ways to stay involved.
For example, in 2020 some of Dr. Zhang’s classmates helped proctor virtual group therapy sessions held by the local National Alliance on Mental Illness chapter. Medical students at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York were not only able to engage in telehealth but also join other task forces, such as PPE supply, distribution, and coordination, morale promotion, and administrative services.3 Finally, many medical students in New York volunteered in providing child care for frontline doctors to help relieve their burden.4 These actions, if implemented more widely, may have had a protective effect on the stress and well-being of medical students at that time.
While our study focused on the academic side of things, the personal impacts from COVID-19 need to be acknowledged – sickness from COVID-19 and its sequelae, family loss fromCOVID-19, financial struggle, and racial targeting of Asians to name a few. COVID-19 has influenced many families’ livelihood and changed our understanding of ourselves, others, and the world in unprecedented ways.
Fast forward to today – medical students are used to learning and living in a world with an ongoing pandemic, and medical education and residency application process have adapted to this new normal. The once-crippling uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 and disastrous PPE shortages have passed. Yet, COVID-19 continues to be a stressor. In fact, burnout related to “COVID-19 fatigue” has been on the rise and one recent national survey shows one in five physicians intends to leave practice within 2 years.5
Meanwhile, uncertainty continued to persist, as in August 2022 monkeypox was declared a public health emergency in the United States.6 What Dr. Zhang learned as a medical student during the initial months of COVID-19 continues to be relevant: connect with loved ones, understand the changing reality, process the emotions, recognize what is under one’s control, have a solution-oriented mindset, and be forgiving and patient with oneself and others.
Dr. Zhang is a second-year psychiatry resident physician at Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital/DC DBH, Washington. Dr. Himelhoch serves as professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. His research focuses on developing and studying the efficacy of innovative strategies aimed at improving the health and welfare among people with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders.
References
1. Association of American Medical Colleges. Important Guidance for Medical Students on Clinical Rotations During the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak. 2020 Mar 17.
2. Zhang Y et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022;313:114595. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114595.
3. Bahethi RR et al. Acad Med. 2021 Jun 1;96(6):859-63. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003863.
4. Krieger P and Goodnough A. Medical Students, Sidelined for Now, Find New Ways to Fight Coronavirus. The New York Times. 2020 Mar 23.
5. Abbasi J. JAMA. 2022 Apr 19;327(15):1435-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.5074.
6. Department of Health & Human Services. Biden-Harris Administration Bolsters Monkeypox Response; HHS Secretary Becerra Declares Public Health Emergency. 2022 Aug 4.
During the initial stage of the COVID-19 pandemic U.S. medical students were suspended from in-person clinical interaction. This decision was based on specific guidance from the Association of American Medical Colleges and subsequently implemented in medical schools across the United States.1 Our research project addressed students’ stress level before and after clinical in-person suspension and assessed medical students perceived COVID-19–related risk level. We were particularly curious to learn about students’ emotional struggles as they navigated the initial pedagogical uncertainty associated with the pandemic.
It is likely that heightened stress was greater than before and the rationale was likely multifactorial in nature.2
One key stressor U.S. medical students faced was the negative impacts of COVID-19 on medical education. U.S. Medical Licensing Examination exam-taking was severely impacted, and some students needed to reschedule their test dates because of increased restrictions at testing centers. Third-year medical students in particular were worried about how COVID-19 would influence their residency application; for example, in-person residency interviews and away rotations as fourth-year medical students. Another concern was not being able to be involved in clinical work during the direst stage of this public health emergency because of personal protective equipment shortages and attempts to reduce community spread of COVID-19.
Our study also showed that students had a relatively lower perceived risk level when it comes to COVID-19 than health care workers in the 2003 SARS epidemic, which we suspect is mostly attributable to the suspension of clinical in-person interaction. We also found that female gender and self-reported mental illness diagnosis were two risk factors for perceived stress level, consistent with our current literature.
The reality of clinical in-person inaction caused by PPE shortage and limited telehealth options, together with social isolation and uncertainty regarding future education opportunities, appear to have had a detrimental effect on medical students’ psychological wellbeing. This did not have to be the case. Some medical students found innovative ways to stay involved.
For example, in 2020 some of Dr. Zhang’s classmates helped proctor virtual group therapy sessions held by the local National Alliance on Mental Illness chapter. Medical students at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York were not only able to engage in telehealth but also join other task forces, such as PPE supply, distribution, and coordination, morale promotion, and administrative services.3 Finally, many medical students in New York volunteered in providing child care for frontline doctors to help relieve their burden.4 These actions, if implemented more widely, may have had a protective effect on the stress and well-being of medical students at that time.
While our study focused on the academic side of things, the personal impacts from COVID-19 need to be acknowledged – sickness from COVID-19 and its sequelae, family loss fromCOVID-19, financial struggle, and racial targeting of Asians to name a few. COVID-19 has influenced many families’ livelihood and changed our understanding of ourselves, others, and the world in unprecedented ways.
Fast forward to today – medical students are used to learning and living in a world with an ongoing pandemic, and medical education and residency application process have adapted to this new normal. The once-crippling uncertainty surrounding COVID-19 and disastrous PPE shortages have passed. Yet, COVID-19 continues to be a stressor. In fact, burnout related to “COVID-19 fatigue” has been on the rise and one recent national survey shows one in five physicians intends to leave practice within 2 years.5
Meanwhile, uncertainty continued to persist, as in August 2022 monkeypox was declared a public health emergency in the United States.6 What Dr. Zhang learned as a medical student during the initial months of COVID-19 continues to be relevant: connect with loved ones, understand the changing reality, process the emotions, recognize what is under one’s control, have a solution-oriented mindset, and be forgiving and patient with oneself and others.
Dr. Zhang is a second-year psychiatry resident physician at Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital/DC DBH, Washington. Dr. Himelhoch serves as professor and chair of the department of psychiatry at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. His research focuses on developing and studying the efficacy of innovative strategies aimed at improving the health and welfare among people with co-occurring psychiatric and substance use disorders.
References
1. Association of American Medical Colleges. Important Guidance for Medical Students on Clinical Rotations During the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak. 2020 Mar 17.
2. Zhang Y et al. Psychiatry Res. 2022;313:114595. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114595.
3. Bahethi RR et al. Acad Med. 2021 Jun 1;96(6):859-63. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003863.
4. Krieger P and Goodnough A. Medical Students, Sidelined for Now, Find New Ways to Fight Coronavirus. The New York Times. 2020 Mar 23.
5. Abbasi J. JAMA. 2022 Apr 19;327(15):1435-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2022.5074.
6. Department of Health & Human Services. Biden-Harris Administration Bolsters Monkeypox Response; HHS Secretary Becerra Declares Public Health Emergency. 2022 Aug 4.
One in four cardiologists worldwide report mental health issues
ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.
Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.
The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.
For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.
The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.
That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Bringing back the conversation
The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.
“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”
Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”
The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.
“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
A global perspective
Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.
Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.
Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.
“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
Junior vs. senior physicians
The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.
Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).
Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”
In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.
He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.
With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”
Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
‘Sobering report’
An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.
Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.
It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”
Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”
Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
Years in practice
Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.
Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).
Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.
Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.
In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).
Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.
But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”
Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.
Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.
The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.
For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.
The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.
That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Bringing back the conversation
The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.
“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”
Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”
The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.
“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
A global perspective
Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.
Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.
Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.
“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
Junior vs. senior physicians
The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.
Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).
Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”
In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.
He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.
With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”
Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
‘Sobering report’
An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.
Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.
It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”
Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”
Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
Years in practice
Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.
Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).
Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.
Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.
In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).
Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.
But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”
Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ranging from anxiety or anger issues to major depression or other psychiatric disorders.
Such conditions varied in prevalence by cardiology subspecialty and years in the field, were more common in women than in men, and were closely linked to enduring hostile work environments and other strains of professional life.
The survey, conducted only months before the COVID-19 pandemic and with its share of limitations, still paints a picture that’s not pretty.
For example, mental health concerns were reported by about 42% of respondents who cited a hostile work environment, defined as workplace experience of discrimination based on age, sex, religion, race or ethnicity, or emotional or sexual harassment. Conversely, the prevalence of these concerns reached only 17% among those without such workplace conditions.
The study shows substantial overlap between cardiologists reporting hostility at work and those with mental health concerns, “and that was a significant finding,” Garima Sharma, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, said in an interview.
Still, only 31% of male and 42% of female cardiologists (P < .001) reporting mental health concerns also said they had sought professional help either within or outside their own institutions.
That means “there is a lot of silent suffering” in the field, said Dr. Sharma, who is lead author on the study, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
Bringing back the conversation
The survey findings, she added, point to at least two potential ways the cardiology community can strive to diminish what may be a major underlying cause of the mental health concerns and their consequences.
“If you work towards reducing hostility at work and making mental health a priority for your workforce, then those experiencing these types of egregious conditions based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation are less likely to be harmed.”
Mental health concerns among cardiologists are seldom openly discussed, so the current study can be “a way to bring them back into the conversation,” Dr. Sharma said. Clinician mental health “is extremely important because it directly impacts patient care and productivity.”
The survey’s reported mental health conditions “are an issue across the board in medicine, and amongst our medical students as well,” senior author Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, professor of internal medicine at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview. The current study provides new details about their prevalence and predictors in cardiology and, she hopes, may improve the field’s awareness of and efforts to address the problem.
“We need to support those who have underlying mental health conditions, as well as improve the work environment to reduce contributory factors to mental illnesses. And we also need to work on reducing the stigma associated with seeking treatment and on reducing the barriers to receiving treatment,” said Dr. Mehta, who chairs the Workgroup on Clinician Well-Being of the ACC, which conducted the survey in 2019.
A global perspective
Cardiologists in Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania – 5,890 in all – responded to mental health questions on the survey, which was novel for its global reach and insights across continents and cultures.
Respondents in South America and Central America reported the highest prevalences of mental health concerns, outliers at about 39% and 33%, respectively. Rates for most other geographic regions ranged narrowly from about 20% to 26%, the lowest reported in Asia and the Middle East.
Dr. Sharma acknowledged that the countries probably varied widely in social and cultural factors likely to influence survey responses, such as interpretation of the questionnaire’s mental health terminology or the degree to which the disorders are stigmatized.
“I think it’s hard to say how people may or may not respond culturally to a certain word or metric,” she said. But on the survey results, “whether you’re practicing in rural America, in rural India, or in the United Arab Emirates, Oceania, or Eastern Europe, there is a level of consistency, across the board, in what people are recognizing as mental health conditions.”
Junior vs. senior physicians
The global perspective “is a nice positive of the study, and the high rates in Central America and South America I think were something the field was not aware of and are an important contribution,” Srijan Sen, MD, PhD, said in an interview.
The psychological toll of hostile work environments is an issue throughout medicine, “but it seems greater in certain specialties, and cardiology may be one where it’s more of a problem,” observed Dr. Sen, who studies physician mental health at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and wasn’t associated with the survey.
Mental health concerns in the survey were significantly more common among women than men (33.7% vs 26.3%), and for younger cardiologists, compared with older cardiologists (32.2% for those < 40 vs. 22.1% and 16.8% for those 55-69 and 70 or older, respectively).
Those findings seem to make sense, Dr. Sen observed. “Generally, cardiology and medicine broadly are hierarchical, so being more junior can be stressful.” And if there’s more hostility in the workplace, “it might fall on junior people.”
In other studies, moreover, “a high level of work-family conflict has been a real driver of depression and burnout, and that likely is affecting younger physicians, particularly young women physicians,” who may have smaller children and a greater burden of childcare than their seniors.
He pointed to the survey’s low response rate as an important limitation of the study. Of the 71,022 cardiologists invited to participate, only 5,890 (8.3%) responded and answered the queries on mental health.
With a response rate that low, a survey “can be biased in ways that we can’t predict,” Dr. Sen noted. Also, anyone concerned about the toxicity of their own workplace might be “more likely to respond to the survey than if they worked in a more pleasant place. That would provide a skewed sense of the overall experience of cardiologists.”
Those issues might not be a concern with the current survey, however, “because the results are consistent with other studies with higher response rates.”
‘Sobering report’
An accompanying editorial said Dr. Sharm and colleagues have provided “a sobering report on the global prevalence and potential contributors to mental health concerns” in the surveyed population.
Based on its lessons, Andrew J. Sauer, MD, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Mo., proposed several potential “interventions” the field could enact.
It could “selectively promote leaders who strive to mitigate implicit bias, discrimination, and harassment while advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the broad ranks of cardiologists.”
Also, he continued, “we must eliminate the stigmatization of mental illness among physicians. We need to handle mental health concerns with compassion and without blaming, like how we strive to treat our veterans who suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder.”
Lastly, Dr. Sauer wrote, “mentorship programs should be formalized to assist the cardiologist in transition zones from early to mid-career, with particular attention to women and those experiencing a simultaneously increased load of family burdens that compound existing workplace contributors to burnout and psychological distress.”
Years in practice
Of the cardiologists who responded to the survey’s mental health questions, 28% reported they have experienced mental health issues that could include alcohol/drug use disorder, suicidal tendencies, psychological distress (including anxiety, irritability, or anger), “other psychiatric disorders” (such as panic disorder, posttraumatic stress, or eating disorders) or major psychiatric disorders such as major depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.
Cardiologists with 5-10 years of practice post-training were more likely than cardiologists practicing for at least 20 years to have mental health concerns (31.9% vs. 22.6%, P < .001).
Mental health concerns were cited by 42% of respondents who cited “any type of discrimination” based on age, sex, race or ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the report noted.
Among those reporting any mental health concern, 2.7% considered suicide within the past year and 2.9% considered suicide more than 12 months previously. Women were more likely than men to consider suicide within the past year (3.8% vs. 2.3%) but were also more likely to seek help (42.3% vs. 31.1%; P < .001 for both differences), the authors wrote.
In multivariate analysis, predictors of mental health concerns included emotional harassment, 2.81 (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% confidence interval, 2.46-3.20), any discrimination (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.12), being divorced (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.26-2.36, age less than 55 years (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.24-1.66), and being mid-career versus late (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62).
Because the survey was conducted from September to October 2019, before the pandemic’s traumatic effects unfolded on health care nearly everywhere, “I think there needs to be a follow-up at some point when everything has leveled out,” Dr. Sharma said. The current study is “a baseline, and not a healthy baseline,” for the field’s state of mental health that has likely grown worse during the pandemic.
But even without such a follow-up, the current study “is actionable enough that it forces us to do something about it right now.”
Dr. Sharma, Dr. Mehta, their coauthors, Dr. Sen, and Dr. Sauer reported no relevant disclosures.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Suicidality in an older patient with chronic kidney disease
CASE Depressed, anxious, and suicidal
Mr. J, age 72, is brought to the emergency department by law enforcement at his wife’s request due to worsening suicidal thoughts and anxiety. He has a history of major depressive disorder (MDD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Mr. J has been compliant with his medications, but they seem to no longer be effective. He is admitted to the geriatric psychiatry unit.
HISTORY Increased debilitation
Over the past several years, Mr. J has experienced increasing debilitation at home, including difficulty walking and an inability to perform activities of daily life. Recently, he has begun to ask for multiple pills in an attempt to take his own life.
Mr. J has been previously treated in a psychiatric clinic with duloxetine 60 mg/d, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at bedtime, buspirone 15 mg 3 times a day, and trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime. He is also taking amlodipine 5 mg twice daily for hypertension, lisinopril 2.5 mg/d for hypertension, furosemide 20 mg/d orally for CKD, and potassium chloride 10 mEq/d for hypokalemia secondary to CKD and furosemide use. Over the past year, his psychiatric medications have been steadily increased to target his MDD and anxiety.
EVALUATION Disorientation and Stage 3A CKD
In the psychiatric unit, Mr. J describes panic, feelings of impending doom, and profound anxiety. He states he has increasing anxiety related to “being a burden” on his family and wife. Additionally, he describes decreased appetite, difficulty sleeping, low energy, difficulty concentrating, no interest in outside activities, and feelings of hopelessness.
Mr. J’s temperature is 39.2o C; heart rate is 109 beats per minute; respiratory rate is 18 breaths per minute; blood pressure is 157/83 mm Hg; and pulse oximetry is 97%. Laboratory screening indicates a red blood cell count of 3.57, hemoglobin 11.2, hematocrit 33.8, red blood cell distribution width 17.5, blood urea nitrogen 45, creatinine 1.5 with no known baseline, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 46 mL/min, indicating Stage 3A CKD (Table 11). Additional testing rules out other potential causes of delirium and psychosis.
A physical exam reveals Mr. J has a fine tremor, myoclonus, muscle rigidity, and hyperreflexia. He is oriented to name, but not to date, place, or situation, and is easily confused. Mr. J uses a walker but has significant tremors while walking and immediately asks for assistance due to profound anxiety related to a fear of falling. Mr. J’s mood and affect are labile with tearful and anxious episodes. His anxiety focuses on overvalued thoughts of minor or irrelevant concerns. Additionally, he has poor insight and judgment. When asked about the cause of his anxiety, Mr. J says, “I don’t know why I’m anxious; I’m just a worrywart.” His memory is impaired, and he does not know why he is in the hospital. Mr. J scores 24 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which indicates mild impairment.
Mr. J continues to endorse suicidal ideation but denies homicidal thoughts. Based on these symptoms, the differential diagnosis includes serotonin syndrome, MDD with suicidal ideation, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder.
Continue to: The authors' observations
[polldaddy:11273789]
The authors’ observations
GFR is used to determine the level of renal impairment. Mr. J’s GFR of 46 mL/min indicates Stage 3A CKD (Table 11 ). Additionally, he displayed anemia and increased creatinine due to CKD. Twenty percent of patients with CKD also experience MDD.2 In a prospective observational cohort study, Hedayati et al3 found that Stage 2 to Stage 5 CKD with MDD leads to an increased risk of death, hospitalization, or progression to dialysis. It is important to properly manage Mr. J’s MDD and CKD to prevent future comorbidities. Renal impairment is common in people age >65.4 Even when GFR is normal, it is recommended to decrease dosing of medications in older adults due to age-related decreased renal excretion. As kidneys decrease in function, their ability to excrete normal amounts of medications also decreases, leading to increased serum levels and potential toxicity.
A combination of 4 serotonergic psychotropic medications may not be unusual to address treatment-resistant depression in a healthy, nongeriatric adult. However, Mr. J displayed signs of serotonin toxicity, such as hyperthermia, tachycardia, increased blood pressure, increased tremors, myoclonus, hyperreflexia, and muscle rigidity. These are classic signs of serotonin toxicity. For Mr. J, serotonin toxicity can be treated with the removal of serotonergic medications and lorazepam for symptom relief. If symptoms persist, cyproheptadine, a serotonin antagonist, can be used. Mr. J’s psychotropic medications were increased in an outpatient setting and he was unable to renally excrete higher doses of these serotonergic agents, which lead to chronic serotonin toxicity.
It is important to rule out other causes of psychosis or delirium in geriatric patients. A study by Marcantonio et al5 found that >40% of patients referred to a consulting psychiatrist for depression ultimately had delirium, and this was more likely in geriatric patients.
TREATMENT Adjustments to the medication regimen
The treatment team decides to taper and discontinue duloxetine, buspirone, and trazodone and reduce mirtazapine to 15 mg/d at bedtime. Additionally, oral lorazepam 1 mg as needed is prescribed to alleviate agitation and correct vital signs. Mr. J’s vital signs improve, with decreased temperature and normal cardiac and respiratory rhythms.
Mr. J’s Stage 3A CKD is treated with oral fluids, and his hypertension is managed with an increase of lisinopril from 2.5 mg/d to 10 mg/d. After 10 days on the psychiatric unit, he shows improvement, decreased anxiety, and remission of suicidal ideation.
Continue to: The authors' observations
[polldaddy:11273790]
The authors’ observations
In 2019, the American Geriatric Society (AGS) updated the Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults.4 The Beers Criteria were created to educate clinicians about the use of potentially inappropriate medications that have an unfavorable balance of benefits and risks compared to alternative treatments. The AGS lists medications that should be avoided or have their dosage reduced with varying levels of kidney function in older adults. Duloxetine is one of the medications listed with the recommendation to avoid for patients with a creatinine clearance <30 mL/min. Creatinine clearance is an estimation of GFR.
Although duloxetine is mentioned in the Beers Criteria, many other antidepressants have metabolites excreted by the kidneys.6 Potential adverse effects include increased bleeding, nausea, vomiting, and serotonin toxicity symptoms.7 Mr. J has Stage 3A CKD and takes 4 psychotropics, which will additively increase the serum concentration of serotonergic medications. In terms of treatment for serotonin toxicity, it is important to remove the causative medications. After discontinuing serotonergic medications, lorazepam can be administered as needed. If a patient continues to have symptoms, cyproheptadine is an option.
For patients with impaired renal function, adding nonpharmacologic options should be considered, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, electroconvulsive therapy, and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Table 24,8-18 lists the minimum effective doses for well-known medications for treating MDD.
OUTCOME Improvement and discharge
Mr. J’s confusion improves, his heart rate decreases, and his feelings of panic and doom improve. He continues to have depressive symptoms, but his suicidal ideation stops. At discharge, Mr. J is receiving mirtazapine 15 mg/d, potassium chloride 10 mEq/d orally, lisinopril 20 mg/d orally at bedtime, furosemide 20 mg/d orally, and amlodipine 5 mg orally twice a day. Additionally, the treatment team recommends psychotherapy to Mr. J to address his anxiety and depression.
Bottom Line
Older patients are more sensitive to psychotropic medications, regardless of any comorbidities. It is important to review each patient’s glomerular filtration rate to better understand their renal function and adjust medications accordingly.
Related Resources
- Whittaker P, Vordenberg SE, Coe AB. Deprescribing in older adults: an overview. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(5):40-43. doi:10.12788/cp.0246
- Gibson G, Kennedy LH, Barlow G. Polypharmacy in older adults. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(4):40-46.
- Barr R, Miskle B, Thomas C. Management of major depressive disorder with psychotic features. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(2):30-33. doi:10.12788/cp.0092
Drug Brand Names
Amlodipine • Norvasc
Buspirone • BuSpar
Citalopram • Celexa
Cyproheptadine • Periactin
Desvenlafaxine • Pristiq
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Furosemide • Lasix
Lisinopril • Zestril
Lorazepam • Ativan
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Desyrel
Venlafaxine • Effexor
1. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(2 Suppl 1):S1-S266.
2. Shirazian S, Grant CD, Aina O, et al. Depression in chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease: similarities and differences in diagnosis, epidemiology, and management. Kidney Int Rep. 2017;2(1):94-107.
3. Hedayati SS, Minhajuddin AT, Afshar M, et al. Association between major depressive episodes in patients with chronic kidney disease and initiation of dialysis, hospitalization, or death. JAMA. 2010;303(19):1946-1953.
4. 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2019 updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(4):674-694.
5. Marcantonio E, Ta T, Duthie E, et al. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850-857.
6. Cukor D, Cohen, SD, Peterson RA, et al. Psychosocial aspects of chronic disease: ESRD as a paradigmatic illness. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(12):3042-3055.
7. Cohen SD, Norris L, Acquaviva K, et al. Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of depression in patients with end-stage renal disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(6):1332-1342.
8. Sommi RW, Crismon ML, Bowden CL. Fluoxetine: a serotonin-specific, second-generation antidepressant. Pharmacotherapy. 1987;7(1):1-15.
9. Jenner PN. Paroxetine: an overview of dosage, tolerability, and safety. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1992;6(Suppl 4):69-80.
10. Montgomery SA. Selecting the optimum therapeutic dose of serotonin reuptake inhibitors: studies with citalopram. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;10(Suppl 1):23-27.
11. Milosavljevic F, Bukvic N, Pavlovic Z, et al. Association of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 poor and intermediate metabolizer status with antidepressant and antipsychotic exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(3):270-280.
12. Rao N. The clinical pharmacokinetics of escitalopram. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2007;46(4):281-290.
13. Preskorn SH, Lane RM. Sertraline 50 mg daily: the optimal dose in the treatment of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;10(3):129-141.
14. Huddart R, Hicks JK, Ramsey LB, et al. PharmGKB summary: sertraline pathway, pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2020;30(2):26-33.
15. Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Cowen PJ, et al. Optimal dose of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine in major depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(7):601-609.
16. Norman TR, Olver JS. Desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depression: an updated overview. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2021;22(9):1087-1097.
17. Knadler MP, Lobo E, Chappell J, et al. Duloxetine: clinical pharmacokinetics and drug interactions. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50(5):281-294.
18. Anttila SA, Leinonen EV. A review of the pharmacological and clinical profile of mirtazapine. CNS Drug Rev. 2001;7(3):249-264.
CASE Depressed, anxious, and suicidal
Mr. J, age 72, is brought to the emergency department by law enforcement at his wife’s request due to worsening suicidal thoughts and anxiety. He has a history of major depressive disorder (MDD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Mr. J has been compliant with his medications, but they seem to no longer be effective. He is admitted to the geriatric psychiatry unit.
HISTORY Increased debilitation
Over the past several years, Mr. J has experienced increasing debilitation at home, including difficulty walking and an inability to perform activities of daily life. Recently, he has begun to ask for multiple pills in an attempt to take his own life.
Mr. J has been previously treated in a psychiatric clinic with duloxetine 60 mg/d, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at bedtime, buspirone 15 mg 3 times a day, and trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime. He is also taking amlodipine 5 mg twice daily for hypertension, lisinopril 2.5 mg/d for hypertension, furosemide 20 mg/d orally for CKD, and potassium chloride 10 mEq/d for hypokalemia secondary to CKD and furosemide use. Over the past year, his psychiatric medications have been steadily increased to target his MDD and anxiety.
EVALUATION Disorientation and Stage 3A CKD
In the psychiatric unit, Mr. J describes panic, feelings of impending doom, and profound anxiety. He states he has increasing anxiety related to “being a burden” on his family and wife. Additionally, he describes decreased appetite, difficulty sleeping, low energy, difficulty concentrating, no interest in outside activities, and feelings of hopelessness.
Mr. J’s temperature is 39.2o C; heart rate is 109 beats per minute; respiratory rate is 18 breaths per minute; blood pressure is 157/83 mm Hg; and pulse oximetry is 97%. Laboratory screening indicates a red blood cell count of 3.57, hemoglobin 11.2, hematocrit 33.8, red blood cell distribution width 17.5, blood urea nitrogen 45, creatinine 1.5 with no known baseline, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 46 mL/min, indicating Stage 3A CKD (Table 11). Additional testing rules out other potential causes of delirium and psychosis.
A physical exam reveals Mr. J has a fine tremor, myoclonus, muscle rigidity, and hyperreflexia. He is oriented to name, but not to date, place, or situation, and is easily confused. Mr. J uses a walker but has significant tremors while walking and immediately asks for assistance due to profound anxiety related to a fear of falling. Mr. J’s mood and affect are labile with tearful and anxious episodes. His anxiety focuses on overvalued thoughts of minor or irrelevant concerns. Additionally, he has poor insight and judgment. When asked about the cause of his anxiety, Mr. J says, “I don’t know why I’m anxious; I’m just a worrywart.” His memory is impaired, and he does not know why he is in the hospital. Mr. J scores 24 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which indicates mild impairment.
Mr. J continues to endorse suicidal ideation but denies homicidal thoughts. Based on these symptoms, the differential diagnosis includes serotonin syndrome, MDD with suicidal ideation, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder.
Continue to: The authors' observations
[polldaddy:11273789]
The authors’ observations
GFR is used to determine the level of renal impairment. Mr. J’s GFR of 46 mL/min indicates Stage 3A CKD (Table 11 ). Additionally, he displayed anemia and increased creatinine due to CKD. Twenty percent of patients with CKD also experience MDD.2 In a prospective observational cohort study, Hedayati et al3 found that Stage 2 to Stage 5 CKD with MDD leads to an increased risk of death, hospitalization, or progression to dialysis. It is important to properly manage Mr. J’s MDD and CKD to prevent future comorbidities. Renal impairment is common in people age >65.4 Even when GFR is normal, it is recommended to decrease dosing of medications in older adults due to age-related decreased renal excretion. As kidneys decrease in function, their ability to excrete normal amounts of medications also decreases, leading to increased serum levels and potential toxicity.
A combination of 4 serotonergic psychotropic medications may not be unusual to address treatment-resistant depression in a healthy, nongeriatric adult. However, Mr. J displayed signs of serotonin toxicity, such as hyperthermia, tachycardia, increased blood pressure, increased tremors, myoclonus, hyperreflexia, and muscle rigidity. These are classic signs of serotonin toxicity. For Mr. J, serotonin toxicity can be treated with the removal of serotonergic medications and lorazepam for symptom relief. If symptoms persist, cyproheptadine, a serotonin antagonist, can be used. Mr. J’s psychotropic medications were increased in an outpatient setting and he was unable to renally excrete higher doses of these serotonergic agents, which lead to chronic serotonin toxicity.
It is important to rule out other causes of psychosis or delirium in geriatric patients. A study by Marcantonio et al5 found that >40% of patients referred to a consulting psychiatrist for depression ultimately had delirium, and this was more likely in geriatric patients.
TREATMENT Adjustments to the medication regimen
The treatment team decides to taper and discontinue duloxetine, buspirone, and trazodone and reduce mirtazapine to 15 mg/d at bedtime. Additionally, oral lorazepam 1 mg as needed is prescribed to alleviate agitation and correct vital signs. Mr. J’s vital signs improve, with decreased temperature and normal cardiac and respiratory rhythms.
Mr. J’s Stage 3A CKD is treated with oral fluids, and his hypertension is managed with an increase of lisinopril from 2.5 mg/d to 10 mg/d. After 10 days on the psychiatric unit, he shows improvement, decreased anxiety, and remission of suicidal ideation.
Continue to: The authors' observations
[polldaddy:11273790]
The authors’ observations
In 2019, the American Geriatric Society (AGS) updated the Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults.4 The Beers Criteria were created to educate clinicians about the use of potentially inappropriate medications that have an unfavorable balance of benefits and risks compared to alternative treatments. The AGS lists medications that should be avoided or have their dosage reduced with varying levels of kidney function in older adults. Duloxetine is one of the medications listed with the recommendation to avoid for patients with a creatinine clearance <30 mL/min. Creatinine clearance is an estimation of GFR.
Although duloxetine is mentioned in the Beers Criteria, many other antidepressants have metabolites excreted by the kidneys.6 Potential adverse effects include increased bleeding, nausea, vomiting, and serotonin toxicity symptoms.7 Mr. J has Stage 3A CKD and takes 4 psychotropics, which will additively increase the serum concentration of serotonergic medications. In terms of treatment for serotonin toxicity, it is important to remove the causative medications. After discontinuing serotonergic medications, lorazepam can be administered as needed. If a patient continues to have symptoms, cyproheptadine is an option.
For patients with impaired renal function, adding nonpharmacologic options should be considered, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, electroconvulsive therapy, and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Table 24,8-18 lists the minimum effective doses for well-known medications for treating MDD.
OUTCOME Improvement and discharge
Mr. J’s confusion improves, his heart rate decreases, and his feelings of panic and doom improve. He continues to have depressive symptoms, but his suicidal ideation stops. At discharge, Mr. J is receiving mirtazapine 15 mg/d, potassium chloride 10 mEq/d orally, lisinopril 20 mg/d orally at bedtime, furosemide 20 mg/d orally, and amlodipine 5 mg orally twice a day. Additionally, the treatment team recommends psychotherapy to Mr. J to address his anxiety and depression.
Bottom Line
Older patients are more sensitive to psychotropic medications, regardless of any comorbidities. It is important to review each patient’s glomerular filtration rate to better understand their renal function and adjust medications accordingly.
Related Resources
- Whittaker P, Vordenberg SE, Coe AB. Deprescribing in older adults: an overview. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(5):40-43. doi:10.12788/cp.0246
- Gibson G, Kennedy LH, Barlow G. Polypharmacy in older adults. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(4):40-46.
- Barr R, Miskle B, Thomas C. Management of major depressive disorder with psychotic features. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(2):30-33. doi:10.12788/cp.0092
Drug Brand Names
Amlodipine • Norvasc
Buspirone • BuSpar
Citalopram • Celexa
Cyproheptadine • Periactin
Desvenlafaxine • Pristiq
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Furosemide • Lasix
Lisinopril • Zestril
Lorazepam • Ativan
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Desyrel
Venlafaxine • Effexor
CASE Depressed, anxious, and suicidal
Mr. J, age 72, is brought to the emergency department by law enforcement at his wife’s request due to worsening suicidal thoughts and anxiety. He has a history of major depressive disorder (MDD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Mr. J has been compliant with his medications, but they seem to no longer be effective. He is admitted to the geriatric psychiatry unit.
HISTORY Increased debilitation
Over the past several years, Mr. J has experienced increasing debilitation at home, including difficulty walking and an inability to perform activities of daily life. Recently, he has begun to ask for multiple pills in an attempt to take his own life.
Mr. J has been previously treated in a psychiatric clinic with duloxetine 60 mg/d, mirtazapine 30 mg/d at bedtime, buspirone 15 mg 3 times a day, and trazodone 50 mg/d at bedtime. He is also taking amlodipine 5 mg twice daily for hypertension, lisinopril 2.5 mg/d for hypertension, furosemide 20 mg/d orally for CKD, and potassium chloride 10 mEq/d for hypokalemia secondary to CKD and furosemide use. Over the past year, his psychiatric medications have been steadily increased to target his MDD and anxiety.
EVALUATION Disorientation and Stage 3A CKD
In the psychiatric unit, Mr. J describes panic, feelings of impending doom, and profound anxiety. He states he has increasing anxiety related to “being a burden” on his family and wife. Additionally, he describes decreased appetite, difficulty sleeping, low energy, difficulty concentrating, no interest in outside activities, and feelings of hopelessness.
Mr. J’s temperature is 39.2o C; heart rate is 109 beats per minute; respiratory rate is 18 breaths per minute; blood pressure is 157/83 mm Hg; and pulse oximetry is 97%. Laboratory screening indicates a red blood cell count of 3.57, hemoglobin 11.2, hematocrit 33.8, red blood cell distribution width 17.5, blood urea nitrogen 45, creatinine 1.5 with no known baseline, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 46 mL/min, indicating Stage 3A CKD (Table 11). Additional testing rules out other potential causes of delirium and psychosis.
A physical exam reveals Mr. J has a fine tremor, myoclonus, muscle rigidity, and hyperreflexia. He is oriented to name, but not to date, place, or situation, and is easily confused. Mr. J uses a walker but has significant tremors while walking and immediately asks for assistance due to profound anxiety related to a fear of falling. Mr. J’s mood and affect are labile with tearful and anxious episodes. His anxiety focuses on overvalued thoughts of minor or irrelevant concerns. Additionally, he has poor insight and judgment. When asked about the cause of his anxiety, Mr. J says, “I don’t know why I’m anxious; I’m just a worrywart.” His memory is impaired, and he does not know why he is in the hospital. Mr. J scores 24 on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, which indicates mild impairment.
Mr. J continues to endorse suicidal ideation but denies homicidal thoughts. Based on these symptoms, the differential diagnosis includes serotonin syndrome, MDD with suicidal ideation, generalized anxiety disorder, and panic disorder.
Continue to: The authors' observations
[polldaddy:11273789]
The authors’ observations
GFR is used to determine the level of renal impairment. Mr. J’s GFR of 46 mL/min indicates Stage 3A CKD (Table 11 ). Additionally, he displayed anemia and increased creatinine due to CKD. Twenty percent of patients with CKD also experience MDD.2 In a prospective observational cohort study, Hedayati et al3 found that Stage 2 to Stage 5 CKD with MDD leads to an increased risk of death, hospitalization, or progression to dialysis. It is important to properly manage Mr. J’s MDD and CKD to prevent future comorbidities. Renal impairment is common in people age >65.4 Even when GFR is normal, it is recommended to decrease dosing of medications in older adults due to age-related decreased renal excretion. As kidneys decrease in function, their ability to excrete normal amounts of medications also decreases, leading to increased serum levels and potential toxicity.
A combination of 4 serotonergic psychotropic medications may not be unusual to address treatment-resistant depression in a healthy, nongeriatric adult. However, Mr. J displayed signs of serotonin toxicity, such as hyperthermia, tachycardia, increased blood pressure, increased tremors, myoclonus, hyperreflexia, and muscle rigidity. These are classic signs of serotonin toxicity. For Mr. J, serotonin toxicity can be treated with the removal of serotonergic medications and lorazepam for symptom relief. If symptoms persist, cyproheptadine, a serotonin antagonist, can be used. Mr. J’s psychotropic medications were increased in an outpatient setting and he was unable to renally excrete higher doses of these serotonergic agents, which lead to chronic serotonin toxicity.
It is important to rule out other causes of psychosis or delirium in geriatric patients. A study by Marcantonio et al5 found that >40% of patients referred to a consulting psychiatrist for depression ultimately had delirium, and this was more likely in geriatric patients.
TREATMENT Adjustments to the medication regimen
The treatment team decides to taper and discontinue duloxetine, buspirone, and trazodone and reduce mirtazapine to 15 mg/d at bedtime. Additionally, oral lorazepam 1 mg as needed is prescribed to alleviate agitation and correct vital signs. Mr. J’s vital signs improve, with decreased temperature and normal cardiac and respiratory rhythms.
Mr. J’s Stage 3A CKD is treated with oral fluids, and his hypertension is managed with an increase of lisinopril from 2.5 mg/d to 10 mg/d. After 10 days on the psychiatric unit, he shows improvement, decreased anxiety, and remission of suicidal ideation.
Continue to: The authors' observations
[polldaddy:11273790]
The authors’ observations
In 2019, the American Geriatric Society (AGS) updated the Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults.4 The Beers Criteria were created to educate clinicians about the use of potentially inappropriate medications that have an unfavorable balance of benefits and risks compared to alternative treatments. The AGS lists medications that should be avoided or have their dosage reduced with varying levels of kidney function in older adults. Duloxetine is one of the medications listed with the recommendation to avoid for patients with a creatinine clearance <30 mL/min. Creatinine clearance is an estimation of GFR.
Although duloxetine is mentioned in the Beers Criteria, many other antidepressants have metabolites excreted by the kidneys.6 Potential adverse effects include increased bleeding, nausea, vomiting, and serotonin toxicity symptoms.7 Mr. J has Stage 3A CKD and takes 4 psychotropics, which will additively increase the serum concentration of serotonergic medications. In terms of treatment for serotonin toxicity, it is important to remove the causative medications. After discontinuing serotonergic medications, lorazepam can be administered as needed. If a patient continues to have symptoms, cyproheptadine is an option.
For patients with impaired renal function, adding nonpharmacologic options should be considered, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy, electroconvulsive therapy, and transcranial magnetic stimulation. Table 24,8-18 lists the minimum effective doses for well-known medications for treating MDD.
OUTCOME Improvement and discharge
Mr. J’s confusion improves, his heart rate decreases, and his feelings of panic and doom improve. He continues to have depressive symptoms, but his suicidal ideation stops. At discharge, Mr. J is receiving mirtazapine 15 mg/d, potassium chloride 10 mEq/d orally, lisinopril 20 mg/d orally at bedtime, furosemide 20 mg/d orally, and amlodipine 5 mg orally twice a day. Additionally, the treatment team recommends psychotherapy to Mr. J to address his anxiety and depression.
Bottom Line
Older patients are more sensitive to psychotropic medications, regardless of any comorbidities. It is important to review each patient’s glomerular filtration rate to better understand their renal function and adjust medications accordingly.
Related Resources
- Whittaker P, Vordenberg SE, Coe AB. Deprescribing in older adults: an overview. Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(5):40-43. doi:10.12788/cp.0246
- Gibson G, Kennedy LH, Barlow G. Polypharmacy in older adults. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(4):40-46.
- Barr R, Miskle B, Thomas C. Management of major depressive disorder with psychotic features. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(2):30-33. doi:10.12788/cp.0092
Drug Brand Names
Amlodipine • Norvasc
Buspirone • BuSpar
Citalopram • Celexa
Cyproheptadine • Periactin
Desvenlafaxine • Pristiq
Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Fluoxetine • Prozac
Furosemide • Lasix
Lisinopril • Zestril
Lorazepam • Ativan
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Paroxetine • Paxil
Sertraline • Zoloft
Trazodone • Desyrel
Venlafaxine • Effexor
1. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(2 Suppl 1):S1-S266.
2. Shirazian S, Grant CD, Aina O, et al. Depression in chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease: similarities and differences in diagnosis, epidemiology, and management. Kidney Int Rep. 2017;2(1):94-107.
3. Hedayati SS, Minhajuddin AT, Afshar M, et al. Association between major depressive episodes in patients with chronic kidney disease and initiation of dialysis, hospitalization, or death. JAMA. 2010;303(19):1946-1953.
4. 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2019 updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(4):674-694.
5. Marcantonio E, Ta T, Duthie E, et al. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850-857.
6. Cukor D, Cohen, SD, Peterson RA, et al. Psychosocial aspects of chronic disease: ESRD as a paradigmatic illness. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(12):3042-3055.
7. Cohen SD, Norris L, Acquaviva K, et al. Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of depression in patients with end-stage renal disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(6):1332-1342.
8. Sommi RW, Crismon ML, Bowden CL. Fluoxetine: a serotonin-specific, second-generation antidepressant. Pharmacotherapy. 1987;7(1):1-15.
9. Jenner PN. Paroxetine: an overview of dosage, tolerability, and safety. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1992;6(Suppl 4):69-80.
10. Montgomery SA. Selecting the optimum therapeutic dose of serotonin reuptake inhibitors: studies with citalopram. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;10(Suppl 1):23-27.
11. Milosavljevic F, Bukvic N, Pavlovic Z, et al. Association of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 poor and intermediate metabolizer status with antidepressant and antipsychotic exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(3):270-280.
12. Rao N. The clinical pharmacokinetics of escitalopram. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2007;46(4):281-290.
13. Preskorn SH, Lane RM. Sertraline 50 mg daily: the optimal dose in the treatment of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;10(3):129-141.
14. Huddart R, Hicks JK, Ramsey LB, et al. PharmGKB summary: sertraline pathway, pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2020;30(2):26-33.
15. Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Cowen PJ, et al. Optimal dose of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine in major depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(7):601-609.
16. Norman TR, Olver JS. Desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depression: an updated overview. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2021;22(9):1087-1097.
17. Knadler MP, Lobo E, Chappell J, et al. Duloxetine: clinical pharmacokinetics and drug interactions. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50(5):281-294.
18. Anttila SA, Leinonen EV. A review of the pharmacological and clinical profile of mirtazapine. CNS Drug Rev. 2001;7(3):249-264.
1. National Kidney Foundation. K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification. Am J Kidney Dis. 2002;39(2 Suppl 1):S1-S266.
2. Shirazian S, Grant CD, Aina O, et al. Depression in chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease: similarities and differences in diagnosis, epidemiology, and management. Kidney Int Rep. 2017;2(1):94-107.
3. Hedayati SS, Minhajuddin AT, Afshar M, et al. Association between major depressive episodes in patients with chronic kidney disease and initiation of dialysis, hospitalization, or death. JAMA. 2010;303(19):1946-1953.
4. 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2019 updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(4):674-694.
5. Marcantonio E, Ta T, Duthie E, et al. Delirium severity and psychomotor types: their relationship with outcomes after hip fracture repair. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002;50(5):850-857.
6. Cukor D, Cohen, SD, Peterson RA, et al. Psychosocial aspects of chronic disease: ESRD as a paradigmatic illness. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;18(12):3042-3055.
7. Cohen SD, Norris L, Acquaviva K, et al. Screening, diagnosis, and treatment of depression in patients with end-stage renal disease. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(6):1332-1342.
8. Sommi RW, Crismon ML, Bowden CL. Fluoxetine: a serotonin-specific, second-generation antidepressant. Pharmacotherapy. 1987;7(1):1-15.
9. Jenner PN. Paroxetine: an overview of dosage, tolerability, and safety. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1992;6(Suppl 4):69-80.
10. Montgomery SA. Selecting the optimum therapeutic dose of serotonin reuptake inhibitors: studies with citalopram. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;10(Suppl 1):23-27.
11. Milosavljevic F, Bukvic N, Pavlovic Z, et al. Association of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 poor and intermediate metabolizer status with antidepressant and antipsychotic exposure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78(3):270-280.
12. Rao N. The clinical pharmacokinetics of escitalopram. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2007;46(4):281-290.
13. Preskorn SH, Lane RM. Sertraline 50 mg daily: the optimal dose in the treatment of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;10(3):129-141.
14. Huddart R, Hicks JK, Ramsey LB, et al. PharmGKB summary: sertraline pathway, pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2020;30(2):26-33.
15. Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, Cowen PJ, et al. Optimal dose of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine in major depression: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(7):601-609.
16. Norman TR, Olver JS. Desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depression: an updated overview. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2021;22(9):1087-1097.
17. Knadler MP, Lobo E, Chappell J, et al. Duloxetine: clinical pharmacokinetics and drug interactions. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2011;50(5):281-294.
18. Anttila SA, Leinonen EV. A review of the pharmacological and clinical profile of mirtazapine. CNS Drug Rev. 2001;7(3):249-264.
Can a common artificial sweetener fuel anxiety?
In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.
This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Transgenerational transmission
When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.
Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.
Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.
“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.
“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.
“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
Far from harmless?
The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.
In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.
The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.
As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.
Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.
The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.
This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Transgenerational transmission
When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.
Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.
Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.
“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.
“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.
“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
Far from harmless?
The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.
In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.
The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.
As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.
Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.
The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a new preclinical study, investigators observed that mice that drank water containing aspartame exhibited pronounced anxiety-like behaviors in a variety of maze tests.
This behavior occurred at aspartame doses equivalent to less than 15% of the maximum daily human intake recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
“It was such a robust anxiety-like trait that I don’t think any of us were anticipating we would see. It was completely unexpected. Usually you see subtle changes,” lead author Sara Jones, doctoral candidate at Florida State University, Tallahassee, said in a news release.
The findings were published online in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Transgenerational transmission
When consumed, aspartame becomes aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol – all of which can have potent effects on the central nervous system, the researchers point out.
Exposing the mice to aspartame also produced changes in the expression of genes regulating excitation-inhibition balance in the amygdala, a brain region that regulates anxiety and fear.
Giving the mice diazepam, which is used to treat generalized anxiety disorder, alleviated the anxiety behavior in the animals.
“The anxiety, its response to diazepam, and the changes in amygdala gene expression are not limited to the aspartame-exposed individuals but also appear in up to two generations descending from the aspartame-exposed males,” the researchers report.
“Extrapolation of the findings to humans suggests that aspartame consumption at doses below the FDA recommended maximum daily intake may produce neurobehavioral changes in aspartame-consuming individuals and their descendants,” they write.
“Thus, human population at risk of aspartame’s potential mental health effects may be larger than current expectations, which only include aspartame-consuming individuals,” they add.
Far from harmless?
The investigators plan to publish additional data from the study that focus on how aspartame affected memory in the mice.
In future research, they hope to identify molecular mechanisms that influence the transmission of aspartame’s effect across generations.
The Florida State University study joins several others that discount the long-held notion that aspartame and other nonnutritive sweeteners have no effect on the body.
As reported by this news organization, in a recent study researchers found that these sugar substitutes are not metabolically inert and can alter the gut microbiome in a way that can influence blood glucose levels.
Artificial sweeteners have also been linked to an increased risk for heart disease and stroke and for cancer.
The study was funded by the Jim and Betty Ann Rodgers Chair Fund at Florida State University and by the Bryan Robinson Foundation. The investigators have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Behavioral treatment tied to lower medical, pharmacy costs
Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.
“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Common, undertreated
Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.
In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.
About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.
About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.
The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.
Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Dose-response effect
In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.
“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.
“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.
Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.
However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.
“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.
“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.
The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.
“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Common, undertreated
Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.
In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.
About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.
About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.
The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.
Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Dose-response effect
In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.
“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.
“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.
Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.
However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.
“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.
“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.
The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Results of a large retrospective study showed that patients newly diagnosed with a BHC who receive OPBHT following diagnosis incur lower medical and pharmacy costs over roughly the next 1 to 2 years, compared with peers who don’t receive OPBHT.
“Our findings suggest that promoting OPBHT as part of a population health strategy is associated with improved overall medical spending, particularly among adults,” the investigators write.
The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
Common, undertreated
Nearly a quarter of adults in the United States have a BHC, and they incur greater medical costs than those without a BHC. However, diagnosis of a BHC is often delayed, and most affected individuals receive little to no treatment.
In their cost analysis, Johanna Bellon, PhD, and colleagues with Evernorth Health, St. Louis, analyzed commercial insurance claims data for 203,401 U.S. individuals newly diagnosed with one or more BHCs between 2017 and 2018.
About half of participants had depression and/or anxiety, 11% had substance use or alcohol use disorder, and 6% had a higher-acuity diagnosis, such as bipolar disorder, severe depression, eating disorder, psychotic disorder, or autism spectrum disorder.
About 1 in 5 (22%) had at least one chronic medical condition along with their BHC.
The researchers found that having at least one OPBHT visit was associated with lower medical and pharmacy costs during 15- and 27-month follow-up periods.
Over 15 months, the adjusted mean per member per month (PMPM) medical/pharmacy cost was $686 with no OPBHT visit, compared with $571 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Over 27 months, the adjusted mean PMPM was $464 with no OPBHT, versus $391 with one or more OPBHT visits.
Dose-response effect
In addition, there was a “dose-response” relationship between OPBHT and medical/pharmacy costs, such that estimated cost savings were significantly lower in the treated versus the untreated groups at almost every level of treatment.
“Our findings were also largely age independent, especially over 15 months, suggesting that OPBHT has favorable effects among children, young adults, and adults,” the researchers report.
“This is promising given that disease etiology and progression, treatment paradigms, presence of comorbid medical conditions, and overall medical and pharmacy costs differ among the three groups,” they say.
Notably, the dataset largely encompassed in-person OPBHT, because the study period preceded the transition into virtual care that occurred in 2020.
However, overall use of OPBHT was low – older adults, adults with lower income, individuals with comorbid medical conditions, and persons of racial and ethnic minorities were less likely to receive OPBHT, they found.
“These findings support the cost-effectiveness of practitioner- and insurance-based interventions to increase OPBHT utilization, which is a critical resource as new BHC diagnoses continue to increase,” the researchers say.
“Future research should validate these findings in other populations, including government-insured individuals, and explore data by chronic disease category, over longer time horizons, by type and quality of OPBHT, by type of medical spending, within subpopulations with BHCs, and including virtual and digital behavioral health services,” they suggest.
The study had no specific funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Terminally ill cancer patients struggle to access psilocybin
In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.
Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.
“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.
But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.
“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.
They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.
In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.
Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.
Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.
This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.
The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.
It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.
“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
Reverberations of Right to Try
The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.
After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.
She died in 2001 at age 21.
Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.
Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.
“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.
Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.
The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.
“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”
He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.
Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.
The response, she said, was predictable.
“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “
The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
Suing the DEA
Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.
They decided to sue.
Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.
The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.
In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.
In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.
In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”
In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”
The government’s response is due in January 2023.
Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.
The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”
Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.
Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.
In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.
And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
The fight north of the border
In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.
After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.
Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.
In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.
“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”
TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.
But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.
Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”
As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.
“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”
Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.
In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
An uncertain future
Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.
When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.
Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.
That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.
In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.
“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”
A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”
But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.
Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.
“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.
But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.
“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.
They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.
In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.
Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.
Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.
This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.
The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.
It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.
“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
Reverberations of Right to Try
The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.
After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.
She died in 2001 at age 21.
Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.
Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.
“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.
Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.
The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.
“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”
He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.
Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.
The response, she said, was predictable.
“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “
The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
Suing the DEA
Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.
They decided to sue.
Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.
The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.
In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.
In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.
In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”
In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”
The government’s response is due in January 2023.
Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.
The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”
Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.
Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.
In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.
And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
The fight north of the border
In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.
After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.
Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.
In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.
“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”
TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.
But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.
Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”
As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.
“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”
Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.
In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
An uncertain future
Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.
When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.
Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.
That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.
In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.
“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”
A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”
But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In March 2020, when the world was struck by the news of the COVID-19 pandemic, Erinn Baldeschwiler received her own gut punch. She was diagnosed with stage IV metastatic breast cancer and was given about 2 years to live.
Then 48, the mother of two teenagers had just started a new chapter in her life. She’d gotten divorced, moved to a new home, and left a small business she had spent 18 years cultivating. The prospect that her life story might soon be ending, that she wouldn’t see her children grow up, was a twist of fate almost too devastating to bear.
“Are you kidding me that this is happening?” she thought.
But she also wanted to keep learning and growing in her remaining years, to devote them to creating meaningful memories, contemplating her mortality, and trying to find inner peace.
“The last 2 years have kind of been this dance with Lady Death,” she said.
They have also been a dance with Lady Justice.
In March 2021, Ms. Baldeschwiler, along with Michal Bloom, who also has terminal cancer, and their palliative care physician, Sunil Aggarwal, MD, PhD, decided to sue the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for the right to access psilocybin, the psychoactive ingredient in “magic” mushrooms.
Psilocybin-assisted therapy has been shown to help terminally ill people overcome their fear, anxiety, and despair about death and to experience the kind of peace Ms. Baldeschwiler is seeking.
Psilocybin is illegal in the United States, but the plaintiffs argue they should be able to take the substance through the Right to Try Act. The 2018 federal law says that people with life-threatening conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options can access drugs that have not yet been approved by the Food and Drug Administration but have passed phase 1 clinical trials.
This case marks the first time patients have fought to use a Schedule I drug under the Right to Try Act.
The push to expand access to psilocybin is picking up steam in the United States. In 2023, facilitated use of psilocybin will become legal in Oregon and Colorado. Recent proposals from the Biden administration and members of Congress could make psilocybin more widely accessible in the next few years.
It is also gaining momentum outside the United States. In Canada, patients are suing the government to help patients obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy for medical purposes.
“I think what we have here is a confluence of events that are driving toward the mandatory opening of a path to access psilocybin for therapeutic use sooner rather than later,” said Kathryn Tucker, lead counsel in the case against the DEA.
Reverberations of Right to Try
The story of Right to Try began with Abigail Burroughs, who was diagnosed with head and neck cancer at age 19.
After conventional therapies failed, Ms. Burroughs’ oncologist recommended cetuximab, a drug targeting EGFR that was experimental at the time. Because the drug was available only through colon cancer trials, she was denied access.
She died in 2001 at age 21.
Ms. Burroughs’ father, Frank Burroughs, formed an organization that in 2003 sued the FDA to provide terminally ill patients access to unapproved drugs. In 2005, they lost, and subsequent attempts to appeal the decision failed.
Still, the case sparked a Right to Try movement.
“Right to Try laws swept the U.S. in a firestorm,” Ms. Tucker said.
Along with the federal law, which passed in 2018, 41 states have enacted Right to Try laws.
The movement intrigued Dr. Aggarwal, codirector of the Advanced Integrative Medical Science (AIMS) Institute in Seattle. Dr. Aggarwal had been treating patients with cannabis, and after taking psilocybin himself and finding it therapeutic, he thought Ms. Baldeschwiler could benefit.
“I always knew that the powerful medicines within Schedule I had a significant role to play in healing,” he said. “That was baked into my decision to become a doctor, to research, and to innovate.”
He applied for the right to cultivate psilocybin mushrooms, but the fungus doesn’t meet Right to Try requirements. He then found a manufacturer willing to supply synthesized psilocybin, but because it’s a Schedule I drug, the manufacturer needed an okay from the DEA.
Dr. Aggarwal joined forces with Ms. Tucker, who has spent 35 years protecting the rights of terminally ill patients. In January 2021, Ms. Tucker contacted the DEA about allowing dying patients, including Ms. Baldeschwiler and Mr. Bloom, to access psilocybin-assisted therapy.
The response, she said, was predictable.
“The DEA’s knee always jerks in the direction of no access,” Ms. Tucker said. “So it said ‘no access.’ “
The reason: In a letter dated February 2021, the DEA said it “has no authority to waive” any requirements of the Controlled Substances Act under Right to Try laws.
Suing the DEA
Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker did not accept the DEA’s “no access” answer.
They decided to sue.
Dr. Aggarwal and Ms. Tucker took the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court in March 2021. In January 2022, the court dismissed the case after the DEA claimed its initial denial was not final.
The following month, the plaintiffs petitioned the DEA to deliver a concrete answer.
In May, while waiting for a response, demonstrators gathered at the DEA’s headquarters to call for legal access to psilocybin. One of the protesters was Ms. Baldeschwiler, who choked back tears as she told the crowd she was likely missing her last Mother’s Day with her children to attend the event. She was arrested, along with 16 other people.
In late June, the DEA provided its final answer: No access.
In a letter addressed to Ms. Tucker, Thomas W. Prevoznik, the DEA’s deputy assistant administrator, said it “finds no basis” to reconsider its initial denial in February 2021 “because the legal and factual considerations remain unchanged.”
In an appeal, Ms. Tucker wrote: “In denying Petitioners’ requested accommodation in the Final Agency Action, DEA hides behind a smokescreen, neglecting its duty to implement the federal [Right to Try Act] and violating the state [Right to Try law].”
The government’s response is due in January 2023.
Ms. Tucker and her legal team also petitioned the DEA on behalf of Dr. Aggarwal to reschedule psilocybin from Schedule I to Schedule II.
The DEA defines Schedule I substances as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” But the FDA has designated psilocybin as a breakthrough therapy for depression, which, Ms. Tucker noted, “reflects that there is a currently accepted medical use.”
Nevertheless, in September, the DEA denied Ms. Tucker’s petition to reschedule psilocybin, and her team is now petitioning the Ninth Circuit Court for a review of that decision.
Despite the setbacks, actions from the Biden administration and members of Congress could help improve access.
In July, Senators Cory Booker and Rand Paul introduced the Right to Try Clarification Act to clarify that the federal law includes Schedule I substances. If passed, Ms. Tucker said, it would negate the DEA’s “no access” argument.
And earlier this year, the Biden administration announced plans to establish a federal task force to address the “myriad of complex issues” associated with the anticipated FDA approval of psilocybin to treat depression. The task force will explore “the potential of psychedelic-assisted therapies” to tackle the mental health crisis as well as any “risks to public health” that “may require harm reduction, risk mitigation, and safety monitoring.”
The fight north of the border
In 2016, Canadian resident Thomas Hartle, then 48, awoke from surgery for a bowel obstruction to learn he had stage IV colon cancer.
After another surgery, his doctors believed the tumors were gone. But in 2019, the cancer came back, along with extreme anxiety and distress over his impending death and how his two special-needs children would cope.
Mr. Hartle wanted to try magic mushroom–assisted psychotherapy. The Saskatoon resident sought help from TheraPsil, a Canadian nonprofit organization that advocates for therapeutic psilocybin. They applied for access under Section 56, which allows health officials to exempt patients from certain provisions of drug law.
In 2020, Hartle became the first Canadian to legally obtain psilocybin-assisted therapy.
“It has been nothing short of life changing for me,” Mr. Hartle said at a palliative care conference in Saskatoon this past June. “I am now no longer actively dying. I feel like I am genuinely actively living.”
TheraPsil has obtained Section 56 exemptions for around 60 patients to access psilocybin-assisted therapy as well as 19 health care professionals who are training to become psilocybin-assisted therapists.
But then an election ushered in new health ministers, and in early 2022, the exemptions evaporated. Thousands of patients and health care practitioners on TheraPsil’s waiting list were left in limbo.
Health Canada told CBC News that the rule change came about because “while psilocybin has shown promise in clinical trials for the treatment of some indications, further research is still needed to determine its safety and efficacy.”
As an alternative, TheraPsil began applying for access under Canada’s Special Access Program, which is similar to Right to Try laws in the United States. But Canada’s program doesn’t apply to therapists in training, and the petition process is so slow that many patients die before requests can be approved.
“People like to pretend that the Special Access Program is not political, but it is very political,” said TheraPsil’s CEO, Spencer Hawkswell. “It means a patient and a doctor are asking a politician for access to their medicine, which is absolutely unacceptable.”
Now, TheraPsil is helping patients take the Canadian government to court. In July, Mr. Hartle and seven others with conditions ranging from cancer to chronic pain filed a lawsuit against Canada’s health ministry that challenges the limited legal pathways to the use of psilocybin. The lawsuit argues that patients have a “constitutional right to access psilocybin for medicinal purposes,” and it advocates for access to regulated psilocybin products from licensed dealers, much like Canada’s medical marijuana program already does.
In the filing, TheraPsil said that as of February 2022, it has a wait-list of more than 800 patients who are requesting help in obtaining psilocybin-assisted psychotherapy.
An uncertain future
Despite the groundswell of support, many unknowns remain about the safety of expanding access to psilocybin-assisted therapy.
When Oregon and Colorado launch their psilocybin programs in 2023, the licensed centers will provide testing grounds for the safety and efficacy of broader access to psilocybin for people with depression or terminal cancer as well as those looking to grow spiritually.
Although in clinical trials psilocybin has been found to ease symptoms of depression and end-of-life demoralization for people with life-threatening conditions, it has not been adequately tested in people with a range of mental health problems, traumas, and racial backgrounds.
That uncertainty has given some people pause. In recent months, some researchers and journalists have pushed back against the frenzy over the promise of psychedelics.
In September, David Yaden, PhD, a psychedelics researcher at Johns Hopkins, spoke at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Psychedelic Research in the Netherlands. He encouraged people to pay more attention to potential adverse effects of psychedelics, which could include anything from headaches to lingering dysphoria.
“Oftentimes, we hear only the positive anecdotes,” Dr. Yaden said. “We don’t hear ... neutral or negative ones. So, I think all of those anecdotes need to be part of the picture.”
A recent piece in Wired noted that mentioning the potential harms of psychedelics amid its renaissance has been “taboo,” but the authors cautioned that as clinical trials involving psychedelics grow larger and the drugs become commercialized, “more negative outcomes are likely to transpire.”
But Ms. Baldeschwiler remains steadfast in her pursuit. While it’s important to approach broader access to psychedelics with caution, “end-of-life patients don’t have time to wait,” she said.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The kids may not be alright, but psychiatry can help
When I was growing up, I can remember experiencing “duck and cover” drills at school. If a flash appeared in our peripheral vision, we were told we should not look at it but crawl under our desks. My classmates and I were being taught how to protect ourselves in case of a nuclear attack.
Clearly, had there been such an attack, ducking under our desks would not have saved us. Thankfully, such a conflict never occurred – and hopefully never will. Still, the warning did penetrate our psyches. In those days, families and children in schools were worried, and some were scared.
The situation is quite different today. Our children and grandchildren are being taught to protect themselves not from actions overseas – that never happened – but from what someone living in their community might do that has been occurring in real time. According to my daughter-in-law, her young children are taught during “lockdowns” to hide in their classrooms’ closets. During these drills, some children are directed to line up against a wall that would be out of sight of a shooter, and to stay as still as possible.
Since 2017, the number of intentional shootings in U.S. kindergarten through grade 12 schools increased precipitously (Prev Med. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107280). Imagine the psychological impact that the vigilance required to deal with such impending threats must be having on our children, as they learn to fear injury and possible death every day they go to school. I’ve talked with numerous parents about this, including my own adult children, and this is clearly a new dimension of life that is on everyone’s minds. Schools, once bastions of safety, are no longer that safe.
For many years, I’ve written about the need to destigmatize mental illness so that it is treated on a par with physical illness. As we look at the challenges faced by young people, reframing mental illness is more important now than ever. This means finding ways to increase the funding of studies that help us understand young people with mental health issues. It also means encouraging patients to pursue treatment from psychiatrists, psychologists, or mental health counselors who specialize in short-term therapy.
The emphasis here on short-term therapy is not to discourage longer-term care when needed, but clearly short-term care strategies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapies, not only work for problem resolution, they also help in the destigmatization of mental health care – as the circumscribed treatment with a clear beginning, middle, and end is consistent with CBT and consistent with much of medical care for physical disorders.
Furthermore, as we aim to destigmatize mental health care, it’s important to equate it with physical care. For example, taking a day or two from school or work for a sprained ankle, seeing a dentist, or an eye exam, plus a myriad of physical issues is quite acceptable. Why is it not also acceptable for a mental health issue and evaluation, such as for anxiety or PTSD, plus being able to talk about it without stigma? Seeing the “shrink” needs to be removed as a negative but viewed as a very positive move toward care for oneself.
In addition, children and adolescents are battling countless other health challenges that could have implications for mental health professionals, for example:
- During the height of the coronavirus pandemic, pediatric endocrinologists reportedly saw a surge of referrals for girls experiencing early puberty. Puberty should never be medicalized, but early maturation has been linked to numerous psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorders (J Pediatr Adolec Gynecol. 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2022.05.005).
- A global epidemiologic study of children estimates that nearly 8 million youth lost a parent or caregiver because of a pandemic-related cause between Jan. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2022. An additional 2.5 million children were affected by the loss of secondary caregivers such as grandparents (JAMA Pediatr. 2022 Sept. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3157).
- The inpatient and outpatient volume of adolescents and young adults receiving care for eating disorders skyrocketed before and after the pandemic, according to the results of case study series (JAMA Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4346).
- Children and adolescents who developed COVID-19 suffered tremendously during the height of the pandemic. A nationwide analysis shows that COVID-19 nearly tripled children’s risks of developing new mental health illnesses, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, trauma, or stress disorder (Psychiatric Services. 2022 Jun 2. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202100646).
In addition to those challenges, young children are facing an increase in respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We were told the “flu” would be quite bad this year and to beware of monkeypox. However, very little mention is made of the equally distressing “epidemic” of mental health issues, PTSD, anxiety, and depression as we are still in the midst of the COVID pandemic in the United States with almost 400 deaths a day – a very unacceptable number.
Interestingly, we seem to have abandoned the use of masks as protection against COVID and other respiratory diseases, despite their effectiveness. A study in Boston that looked at children in two school districts that did not lift mask mandates demonstrated that mask wearing does indeed lead to significant reductions in the number of pediatric COVID cases. In addition to societal violence and school shootings – which certainly exacerbate anxiety – the fear of dying or the death of a loved one, tied to COVID, may lead to epidemic proportions of PTSD in children. As an article in WebMD noted, “pediatricians are imploring the federal government to declare a national emergency as cases of pediatric respiratory illnesses continue to soar.”
In light of the acknowledged mental health crisis in children, which appears epidemic, I would hope the psychiatric and psychological associations would publicly sound an alarm so that resources could be brought to bear to address this critical issue. I believe doing so would also aid in destigmatizing mental disorders, and increase education and treatment.
Layered on top of those issues are natural disasters, such as the fallout from Tropical Storm Nicole when it recently caused devastation across western Florida. The mental health trauma caused by recent tropical storms seems all but forgotten – except for those who are still suffering. All of this adds up to a society-wide mental health crisis, which seems far more expansive than monkeypox, for example. Yet monkeypox, which did lead to thousands of cases and approximately 29 deaths in the United States, was declared a national public health emergency.
Additionally, RSV killed 100-500 U.S. children under age 5 each year before the pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and currently it appears even worse. Yet despite the seriousness of RSV, it nowhere matches the emotional toll COVID has taken on children globally.
Let’s make it standard practice for children – and of course, adults – to be taught that anxiety is a normal response at times. We should teach that, in some cases, feeling “down” or in despair and even experiencing symptoms of PTSD based on what’s going on personally and within our environment (i.e., COVID, school shootings, etc.) are triggers and responses that can be addressed and often quickly treated by talking with a mental health professional.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
When I was growing up, I can remember experiencing “duck and cover” drills at school. If a flash appeared in our peripheral vision, we were told we should not look at it but crawl under our desks. My classmates and I were being taught how to protect ourselves in case of a nuclear attack.
Clearly, had there been such an attack, ducking under our desks would not have saved us. Thankfully, such a conflict never occurred – and hopefully never will. Still, the warning did penetrate our psyches. In those days, families and children in schools were worried, and some were scared.
The situation is quite different today. Our children and grandchildren are being taught to protect themselves not from actions overseas – that never happened – but from what someone living in their community might do that has been occurring in real time. According to my daughter-in-law, her young children are taught during “lockdowns” to hide in their classrooms’ closets. During these drills, some children are directed to line up against a wall that would be out of sight of a shooter, and to stay as still as possible.
Since 2017, the number of intentional shootings in U.S. kindergarten through grade 12 schools increased precipitously (Prev Med. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107280). Imagine the psychological impact that the vigilance required to deal with such impending threats must be having on our children, as they learn to fear injury and possible death every day they go to school. I’ve talked with numerous parents about this, including my own adult children, and this is clearly a new dimension of life that is on everyone’s minds. Schools, once bastions of safety, are no longer that safe.
For many years, I’ve written about the need to destigmatize mental illness so that it is treated on a par with physical illness. As we look at the challenges faced by young people, reframing mental illness is more important now than ever. This means finding ways to increase the funding of studies that help us understand young people with mental health issues. It also means encouraging patients to pursue treatment from psychiatrists, psychologists, or mental health counselors who specialize in short-term therapy.
The emphasis here on short-term therapy is not to discourage longer-term care when needed, but clearly short-term care strategies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapies, not only work for problem resolution, they also help in the destigmatization of mental health care – as the circumscribed treatment with a clear beginning, middle, and end is consistent with CBT and consistent with much of medical care for physical disorders.
Furthermore, as we aim to destigmatize mental health care, it’s important to equate it with physical care. For example, taking a day or two from school or work for a sprained ankle, seeing a dentist, or an eye exam, plus a myriad of physical issues is quite acceptable. Why is it not also acceptable for a mental health issue and evaluation, such as for anxiety or PTSD, plus being able to talk about it without stigma? Seeing the “shrink” needs to be removed as a negative but viewed as a very positive move toward care for oneself.
In addition, children and adolescents are battling countless other health challenges that could have implications for mental health professionals, for example:
- During the height of the coronavirus pandemic, pediatric endocrinologists reportedly saw a surge of referrals for girls experiencing early puberty. Puberty should never be medicalized, but early maturation has been linked to numerous psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorders (J Pediatr Adolec Gynecol. 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2022.05.005).
- A global epidemiologic study of children estimates that nearly 8 million youth lost a parent or caregiver because of a pandemic-related cause between Jan. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2022. An additional 2.5 million children were affected by the loss of secondary caregivers such as grandparents (JAMA Pediatr. 2022 Sept. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3157).
- The inpatient and outpatient volume of adolescents and young adults receiving care for eating disorders skyrocketed before and after the pandemic, according to the results of case study series (JAMA Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4346).
- Children and adolescents who developed COVID-19 suffered tremendously during the height of the pandemic. A nationwide analysis shows that COVID-19 nearly tripled children’s risks of developing new mental health illnesses, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, trauma, or stress disorder (Psychiatric Services. 2022 Jun 2. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202100646).
In addition to those challenges, young children are facing an increase in respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We were told the “flu” would be quite bad this year and to beware of monkeypox. However, very little mention is made of the equally distressing “epidemic” of mental health issues, PTSD, anxiety, and depression as we are still in the midst of the COVID pandemic in the United States with almost 400 deaths a day – a very unacceptable number.
Interestingly, we seem to have abandoned the use of masks as protection against COVID and other respiratory diseases, despite their effectiveness. A study in Boston that looked at children in two school districts that did not lift mask mandates demonstrated that mask wearing does indeed lead to significant reductions in the number of pediatric COVID cases. In addition to societal violence and school shootings – which certainly exacerbate anxiety – the fear of dying or the death of a loved one, tied to COVID, may lead to epidemic proportions of PTSD in children. As an article in WebMD noted, “pediatricians are imploring the federal government to declare a national emergency as cases of pediatric respiratory illnesses continue to soar.”
In light of the acknowledged mental health crisis in children, which appears epidemic, I would hope the psychiatric and psychological associations would publicly sound an alarm so that resources could be brought to bear to address this critical issue. I believe doing so would also aid in destigmatizing mental disorders, and increase education and treatment.
Layered on top of those issues are natural disasters, such as the fallout from Tropical Storm Nicole when it recently caused devastation across western Florida. The mental health trauma caused by recent tropical storms seems all but forgotten – except for those who are still suffering. All of this adds up to a society-wide mental health crisis, which seems far more expansive than monkeypox, for example. Yet monkeypox, which did lead to thousands of cases and approximately 29 deaths in the United States, was declared a national public health emergency.
Additionally, RSV killed 100-500 U.S. children under age 5 each year before the pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and currently it appears even worse. Yet despite the seriousness of RSV, it nowhere matches the emotional toll COVID has taken on children globally.
Let’s make it standard practice for children – and of course, adults – to be taught that anxiety is a normal response at times. We should teach that, in some cases, feeling “down” or in despair and even experiencing symptoms of PTSD based on what’s going on personally and within our environment (i.e., COVID, school shootings, etc.) are triggers and responses that can be addressed and often quickly treated by talking with a mental health professional.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
When I was growing up, I can remember experiencing “duck and cover” drills at school. If a flash appeared in our peripheral vision, we were told we should not look at it but crawl under our desks. My classmates and I were being taught how to protect ourselves in case of a nuclear attack.
Clearly, had there been such an attack, ducking under our desks would not have saved us. Thankfully, such a conflict never occurred – and hopefully never will. Still, the warning did penetrate our psyches. In those days, families and children in schools were worried, and some were scared.
The situation is quite different today. Our children and grandchildren are being taught to protect themselves not from actions overseas – that never happened – but from what someone living in their community might do that has been occurring in real time. According to my daughter-in-law, her young children are taught during “lockdowns” to hide in their classrooms’ closets. During these drills, some children are directed to line up against a wall that would be out of sight of a shooter, and to stay as still as possible.
Since 2017, the number of intentional shootings in U.S. kindergarten through grade 12 schools increased precipitously (Prev Med. 2022 Dec. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107280). Imagine the psychological impact that the vigilance required to deal with such impending threats must be having on our children, as they learn to fear injury and possible death every day they go to school. I’ve talked with numerous parents about this, including my own adult children, and this is clearly a new dimension of life that is on everyone’s minds. Schools, once bastions of safety, are no longer that safe.
For many years, I’ve written about the need to destigmatize mental illness so that it is treated on a par with physical illness. As we look at the challenges faced by young people, reframing mental illness is more important now than ever. This means finding ways to increase the funding of studies that help us understand young people with mental health issues. It also means encouraging patients to pursue treatment from psychiatrists, psychologists, or mental health counselors who specialize in short-term therapy.
The emphasis here on short-term therapy is not to discourage longer-term care when needed, but clearly short-term care strategies, such as cognitive-behavioral therapies, not only work for problem resolution, they also help in the destigmatization of mental health care – as the circumscribed treatment with a clear beginning, middle, and end is consistent with CBT and consistent with much of medical care for physical disorders.
Furthermore, as we aim to destigmatize mental health care, it’s important to equate it with physical care. For example, taking a day or two from school or work for a sprained ankle, seeing a dentist, or an eye exam, plus a myriad of physical issues is quite acceptable. Why is it not also acceptable for a mental health issue and evaluation, such as for anxiety or PTSD, plus being able to talk about it without stigma? Seeing the “shrink” needs to be removed as a negative but viewed as a very positive move toward care for oneself.
In addition, children and adolescents are battling countless other health challenges that could have implications for mental health professionals, for example:
- During the height of the coronavirus pandemic, pediatric endocrinologists reportedly saw a surge of referrals for girls experiencing early puberty. Puberty should never be medicalized, but early maturation has been linked to numerous psychiatric disorders such as depression, anxiety, and eating disorders (J Pediatr Adolec Gynecol. 2022 Oct. doi: 10.1016/j.jpag.2022.05.005).
- A global epidemiologic study of children estimates that nearly 8 million youth lost a parent or caregiver because of a pandemic-related cause between Jan. 1, 2020, and May 1, 2022. An additional 2.5 million children were affected by the loss of secondary caregivers such as grandparents (JAMA Pediatr. 2022 Sept. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3157).
- The inpatient and outpatient volume of adolescents and young adults receiving care for eating disorders skyrocketed before and after the pandemic, according to the results of case study series (JAMA Pediatrics. 2022 Nov 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4346).
- Children and adolescents who developed COVID-19 suffered tremendously during the height of the pandemic. A nationwide analysis shows that COVID-19 nearly tripled children’s risks of developing new mental health illnesses, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, trauma, or stress disorder (Psychiatric Services. 2022 Jun 2. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.202100646).
In addition to those challenges, young children are facing an increase in respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. We were told the “flu” would be quite bad this year and to beware of monkeypox. However, very little mention is made of the equally distressing “epidemic” of mental health issues, PTSD, anxiety, and depression as we are still in the midst of the COVID pandemic in the United States with almost 400 deaths a day – a very unacceptable number.
Interestingly, we seem to have abandoned the use of masks as protection against COVID and other respiratory diseases, despite their effectiveness. A study in Boston that looked at children in two school districts that did not lift mask mandates demonstrated that mask wearing does indeed lead to significant reductions in the number of pediatric COVID cases. In addition to societal violence and school shootings – which certainly exacerbate anxiety – the fear of dying or the death of a loved one, tied to COVID, may lead to epidemic proportions of PTSD in children. As an article in WebMD noted, “pediatricians are imploring the federal government to declare a national emergency as cases of pediatric respiratory illnesses continue to soar.”
In light of the acknowledged mental health crisis in children, which appears epidemic, I would hope the psychiatric and psychological associations would publicly sound an alarm so that resources could be brought to bear to address this critical issue. I believe doing so would also aid in destigmatizing mental disorders, and increase education and treatment.
Layered on top of those issues are natural disasters, such as the fallout from Tropical Storm Nicole when it recently caused devastation across western Florida. The mental health trauma caused by recent tropical storms seems all but forgotten – except for those who are still suffering. All of this adds up to a society-wide mental health crisis, which seems far more expansive than monkeypox, for example. Yet monkeypox, which did lead to thousands of cases and approximately 29 deaths in the United States, was declared a national public health emergency.
Additionally, RSV killed 100-500 U.S. children under age 5 each year before the pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and currently it appears even worse. Yet despite the seriousness of RSV, it nowhere matches the emotional toll COVID has taken on children globally.
Let’s make it standard practice for children – and of course, adults – to be taught that anxiety is a normal response at times. We should teach that, in some cases, feeling “down” or in despair and even experiencing symptoms of PTSD based on what’s going on personally and within our environment (i.e., COVID, school shootings, etc.) are triggers and responses that can be addressed and often quickly treated by talking with a mental health professional.
Dr. London is a practicing psychiatrist and has been a newspaper columnist for 35 years, specializing in and writing about short-term therapy, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and guided imagery. He is author of “Find Freedom Fast” (New York: Kettlehole Publishing, 2019). He has no conflicts of interest.
Immune dysregulation may drive long-term postpartum depression
Postpartum depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder that persist 2-3 years after birth are associated with a dysregulated immune system that is characterized by increased inflammatory signaling, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that mental health screening for women who have given birth should continue beyond the first year post partum, reported lead author Jennifer M. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
“Delayed postpartum depression, also known as late-onset postpartum depression, can affect women up to 18 months after delivery,” the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. “It can appear even later in some women, depending on the hormonal changes that occur after having a baby (for example, timing of weaning). However, the majority of research on maternal mental health focuses on the first year post birth, leaving a gap in research beyond 12 months post partum.”
To address this gap, the investigators enrolled 33 women who were 2-3 years post partum. Participants completed self-guided questionnaires on PTSD, depression, and anxiety, and provided blood samples for gene expression analysis.
Sixteen of the 33 women had clinically significant mood disturbances. and significantly reduced activation of genes associated with viral response.
“The results provide preliminary evidence of a mechanism (e.g., immune dysregulation) that might be contributing to mood disorders and bring us closer to the goal of identifying targetable biomarkers for mood disorders,” Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara said in a written comment. “This work highlights the need for standardized and continual depression and anxiety screening in ob.gyn. and primary care settings that extends beyond the 6-week maternal visit and possibly beyond the first postpartum year.”
Findings draw skepticism
“The authors argue that mothers need to be screened for depression/anxiety longer than the first year post partum, and this is true, but it has nothing to do with their findings,” said Jennifer L. Payne, MD, an expert in reproductive psychiatry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
In a written comment, she explained that the cross-sectional design makes it impossible to know whether the mood disturbances were linked with delivery at all.
“It is unclear if the depression/anxiety symptoms began after delivery or not,” Dr. Payne said. “In addition, it is unclear if the findings are causative or a result of depression/anxiety symptoms (the authors admit this in the limitations section). It is likely that the findings are not specific or even related to having delivered a child, but rather reflect a more general process related to depression/anxiety outside of the postpartum time period.”
Only prospective studies can answer these questions, she said.
Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara agreed that further research is needed.
“Our findings are exciting, but still need to be replicated in larger samples with diverse women in order to make sure they generalize,” she said. “More work is needed to understand why inflammation plays a role in postpartum mental illness for some women and not others.”
The study was supported by a Cedars-Sinai Precision Health Grant, the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, University of California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators and Dr. Payne disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Postpartum depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder that persist 2-3 years after birth are associated with a dysregulated immune system that is characterized by increased inflammatory signaling, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that mental health screening for women who have given birth should continue beyond the first year post partum, reported lead author Jennifer M. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
“Delayed postpartum depression, also known as late-onset postpartum depression, can affect women up to 18 months after delivery,” the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. “It can appear even later in some women, depending on the hormonal changes that occur after having a baby (for example, timing of weaning). However, the majority of research on maternal mental health focuses on the first year post birth, leaving a gap in research beyond 12 months post partum.”
To address this gap, the investigators enrolled 33 women who were 2-3 years post partum. Participants completed self-guided questionnaires on PTSD, depression, and anxiety, and provided blood samples for gene expression analysis.
Sixteen of the 33 women had clinically significant mood disturbances. and significantly reduced activation of genes associated with viral response.
“The results provide preliminary evidence of a mechanism (e.g., immune dysregulation) that might be contributing to mood disorders and bring us closer to the goal of identifying targetable biomarkers for mood disorders,” Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara said in a written comment. “This work highlights the need for standardized and continual depression and anxiety screening in ob.gyn. and primary care settings that extends beyond the 6-week maternal visit and possibly beyond the first postpartum year.”
Findings draw skepticism
“The authors argue that mothers need to be screened for depression/anxiety longer than the first year post partum, and this is true, but it has nothing to do with their findings,” said Jennifer L. Payne, MD, an expert in reproductive psychiatry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
In a written comment, she explained that the cross-sectional design makes it impossible to know whether the mood disturbances were linked with delivery at all.
“It is unclear if the depression/anxiety symptoms began after delivery or not,” Dr. Payne said. “In addition, it is unclear if the findings are causative or a result of depression/anxiety symptoms (the authors admit this in the limitations section). It is likely that the findings are not specific or even related to having delivered a child, but rather reflect a more general process related to depression/anxiety outside of the postpartum time period.”
Only prospective studies can answer these questions, she said.
Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara agreed that further research is needed.
“Our findings are exciting, but still need to be replicated in larger samples with diverse women in order to make sure they generalize,” she said. “More work is needed to understand why inflammation plays a role in postpartum mental illness for some women and not others.”
The study was supported by a Cedars-Sinai Precision Health Grant, the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, University of California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators and Dr. Payne disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
Postpartum depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder that persist 2-3 years after birth are associated with a dysregulated immune system that is characterized by increased inflammatory signaling, according to investigators.
These findings suggest that mental health screening for women who have given birth should continue beyond the first year post partum, reported lead author Jennifer M. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara, PhD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues.
“Delayed postpartum depression, also known as late-onset postpartum depression, can affect women up to 18 months after delivery,” the investigators wrote in the American Journal of Reproductive Immunology. “It can appear even later in some women, depending on the hormonal changes that occur after having a baby (for example, timing of weaning). However, the majority of research on maternal mental health focuses on the first year post birth, leaving a gap in research beyond 12 months post partum.”
To address this gap, the investigators enrolled 33 women who were 2-3 years post partum. Participants completed self-guided questionnaires on PTSD, depression, and anxiety, and provided blood samples for gene expression analysis.
Sixteen of the 33 women had clinically significant mood disturbances. and significantly reduced activation of genes associated with viral response.
“The results provide preliminary evidence of a mechanism (e.g., immune dysregulation) that might be contributing to mood disorders and bring us closer to the goal of identifying targetable biomarkers for mood disorders,” Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara said in a written comment. “This work highlights the need for standardized and continual depression and anxiety screening in ob.gyn. and primary care settings that extends beyond the 6-week maternal visit and possibly beyond the first postpartum year.”
Findings draw skepticism
“The authors argue that mothers need to be screened for depression/anxiety longer than the first year post partum, and this is true, but it has nothing to do with their findings,” said Jennifer L. Payne, MD, an expert in reproductive psychiatry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville.
In a written comment, she explained that the cross-sectional design makes it impossible to know whether the mood disturbances were linked with delivery at all.
“It is unclear if the depression/anxiety symptoms began after delivery or not,” Dr. Payne said. “In addition, it is unclear if the findings are causative or a result of depression/anxiety symptoms (the authors admit this in the limitations section). It is likely that the findings are not specific or even related to having delivered a child, but rather reflect a more general process related to depression/anxiety outside of the postpartum time period.”
Only prospective studies can answer these questions, she said.
Dr. Nicoloro-SantaBarbara agreed that further research is needed.
“Our findings are exciting, but still need to be replicated in larger samples with diverse women in order to make sure they generalize,” she said. “More work is needed to understand why inflammation plays a role in postpartum mental illness for some women and not others.”
The study was supported by a Cedars-Sinai Precision Health Grant, the Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, University of California, Los Angeles, and the National Institute of Mental Health. The investigators and Dr. Payne disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF REPRODUCTIVE IMMUNOLOGY