Anxiety Disorders

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

A number of years ago, a patient I was treating mentioned that she was not eating tomatoes. There had been stories in the news about people contracting bacterial infections from tomatoes, but I paused for a moment, then asked her: “Have there been any contaminated tomatoes here in Maryland?” There had not been and I was still happily eating salsa, but my patient thought about this differently: If disease-causing tomatoes were to come to our state, someone would be the first person to become ill. She did not want to take any risks. My patient, however, was a heavy smoker and already grappling with health issues that were caused by smoking, so I found her choice of what she should worry about and how it influenced her behavior to be perplexing. I realize it’s not the same; nicotine is an addiction, while tomatoes remain a choice for most of us, and it’s common for people to worry about very unlikely events even when we are surrounded by very real and statistically more probable threats to our well-being.

Today’s news reports are filled with stories about 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV), an illness that started in Wuhan, China; as of Jan. 31, 2020, there were 9,776 confirmed cases and 213 deaths. There have been an additional 118 cases reported outside of mainland China, including 6 in the United States, and no one outside of China has died.

The response to the virus has been remarkable: Wuhan, a city of more than 11 million inhabitants, is on lockdown, as are 15 other cities in China; 46 million people have been affected, the largest quarantine in human history. Travel is restricted in parts of China, airports all over the world are screening those who fly in from Wuhan, foreign governments are bringing their citizens home from Wuhan, and even Starbucks has temporarily closed half its stores in China. The economics of containing this virus are astounding.

In the meantime, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that, as of the week of Jan. 25, there have been 19 million cases of the flu in the United States. Of those stricken, 180,000 people have been hospitalized and 10,000 have died, including 68 pediatric patients. No cities are on lockdown, public transportation runs as usual, airports don’t screen passengers for flu symptoms, and Starbucks continues to serve vanilla lattes to any willing customer. Anxiety about illness is not new; we’ve seen it with SARS, Ebola, measles, and even around Chipotle’s food poisoning cases – to name just a few recent scares. We have also seen a lot of media on vaping-related deaths, and as of early January 2020, vaping-related illnesses affected 2,602 people with 59 deaths. It has been a topic of discussion among legislators, with an emphasis on either outlawing the flavoring that might appeal to younger people or simply outlawing e-cigarettes. No one, however, is talking about outlawing regular cigarettes, despite the fact that many people have switched from cigarettes to vaping products as a way to quit smoking. So, while vaping has caused 59 deaths since 2018, cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 fatalities a year in the United States and smokers live, on average, 10 years less than nonsmokers.

So what fuels anxiety about the latest health scare, and why aren’t we more anxious about the more common causes of premature mortality? Certainly, the newness and the unknown are factors in the coronavirus scare. It’s not certain how this illness was introduced into the human population, although one theory is that it started with the consumption of bats who carry the virus. It’s spreading fast, and in some people, it has been lethal. The incubation period is not known, or whether it is contagious before symptoms appear. Coronavirus is getting a lot of public health attention and the World Health Organization just announced that the virus is a public health emergency of international concern. On the televised news on Jan. 29, 2020, coronavirus was the top story in the United States, even though an impeachment trial is in progress for our country’s president.

The public health response of locking down cities may help contain the outbreak and prevent a global epidemic, although millions of people had already left Wuhan, so the heavy-handed attempt to prevent spread of the virus may well be too late. In the case of the Ebola virus – a much more lethal disease that was also thought to be introduced by bats – public health measures certainly curtailed global spread, and the epidemic of 2014-2016 was limited to 28,600 cases and 11,325 deaths, nearly all of them in West Africa.

Most of the things that cause people to die are not new and are not topics the media chooses to sensationalize. Dissemination of news has changed over the decades, with so much more of it, instant reports on social media, and competition for viewers that leads journalists to pull at our emotions. We might worry about getting food poisoning from romaine lettuce – if that is what the news is focusing on – but we don’t worry when we enter our cars, keep firearms in our homes, or light up cigarettes. And while we may, or may not, get flu shots and avoid those who have the flu, how and where we position both our anxiety and our resources does not always make sense. Certainly some people are predisposed to worry about both common and uncommon dangers, while others seem never to worry and engage in acts that many of us would consider dangerous. If we are looking for logic, it may be hard to find – there are those who would happily go bungee jumping but wouldn’t dream of leaving the house out without hand sanitizer.

The repercussions from this massive response to the Wuhan coronavirus are significant. For the millions of people on lockdown in China, each day gets emotionally harder; some may begin to have issues procuring food, and the financial losses for the economy will be significant. It’s not really possible to know yet if this response is warranted; we do know that infectious diseases can kill millions. The AIDS pandemic has taken the lives of 36 million people since 1981, and the influenza pandemic of 1918 resulted in an estimated 20 million to 50 million deaths after infecting 500 million people. Still, one might wonder if other, more mundane causes of morbidity and mortality – the ones that no longer garner our dread or make it to the front pages – might also be worthy of more hype and resources.

Dr. Miller is coauthor with Annette Hanson, MD, of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, both in Baltimore.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

Neuropsychiatric events occurred in just over half of all patients recently diagnosed with systemic lupus erythematosus and followed for an average of nearly 8 years in an international study of more than 1,800 patients.

Up to 30% of these neuropsychiatric (NP) events in up to 20% of the followed cohort were directly attributable to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in a representative patient population, wrote John G. Hanly, MD, and associates in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. Their findings were consistent with prior reports, they added.

Another notable finding from follow-up of these 1,827 SLE patients was that among those without a history of SLE-related NP events at baseline, 74% remained free of NP events during the subsequent 10 years, wrote Dr. Hanly, professor of medicine and director of the lupus clinic at Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S., and coauthors. Among patients free from SLE-associated NP events after 2 years, 84% remained event free during their remaining follow-up. SLE patients with a history of an NP event that subsequently resolved had a 72% rate of freedom from another NP event during 10 years of follow-up.

These findings came from patients recently diagnosed with SLE (within the preceding 15 months) and enrolled at any of 31 participating academic medical centers in North America, Europe, and Asia. The investigators considered preenrollment NP events to include those starting from 6 months prior to diagnosis of SLE until the time patients entered the study. They used case definitions for 19 SLE-associated NP events published by the American College of Rheumatology (Arthritis Rheum. 1999 Apr;42[4]:599-608). All enrolled patients underwent annual assessment for NP events, with follow-up continuing as long as 18 years.

The researchers identified NP events in 955 of the 1,827 enrolled patients, a 52% incidence, including 1,910 unique NP events that included episodes from each of the 19 NP event types, with 92% involving the central nervous system and 8% involving the peripheral nervous system. The percentage of NP events attributable to SLE ranged from 17% to 31%, and they occurred in 14%-21% of the studied patients, with the range reflecting various attribution models used in the analyses. Some patients remained in the same NP state, while others progressed through more than one state.

The study did not receive commercial funding. Dr. Hanly had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Hanly JG et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Jan 8. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-216150.

Rarely does someone come along who has new insight into behavior, someone who conceptualizes with such clarity that we wonder why we never saw it before.

Homer B. Martin, MD, was such a man. Over the course of 40 years’ psychodynamic psychotherapy work as a psychiatrist, he pieced together a concept of how we are emotionally conditioned in the first 3 years of life and how this conditioning affects us throughout our lives. Conditioning forces us to live on autopilot, creating inappropriate knee-jerk emotional responses to those closest to us.

Dr. Martin’s protégé, child and adolescent psychiatrist Christine B.L. Adams, MD, contributed her own 40 years of clinical practice as a psychodynamic psychotherapist to Dr. Martin’s new concept of emotional conditioning. Their findings are published in the award-winning book “Living on Automatic: How Emotional Conditioning Shapes our Lives and Relationships” (Praeger, 2018).

The authors aim to help both therapists and patients out of the quagmire of conflicted relationships and emotional illnesses that result from emotional conditioning. They propose a new understanding of personality development and subsequent relationship conflict, which incorporates work of Pavlov, Skinner, and Lorenz, along with techniques of Freud.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams discovered that we are conditioned into one of two roles – omnipotent and impotent. Those roles become the bedrock of our personalities. We display those roles in marriages, with our children, friends, and colleagues, without regard to gender.

Each role exists on a continuum, from mild to severe, determined by upbringing in the family. Once you acquire a role in childhood, the role is reinforced by both family and society at large – peers, teachers, and friends.

The authors unveil a new conceptualization of how the mind works for each role – thinking style, ways of elaborating emotions, attitudes, personal standards, value systems, reality testing mode, quality of thought, and mode of commitment.

The book has three sections. “Part One, Understanding Emotional Conditioning” describes the basic concepts, the effects of conditioning, and the two personality types. “Part Two, Relationship Struggles: Miscommunications and Marriages” examines marriage conflict, divorce, and living single. “Part Three, Solutions: Psychotherapy and Deconditioning” presents steps we can take to decondition ourselves, as well as the process of deconditioning psychotherapy.

To escape automatic living, Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams endorse the use of deconditioning psychotherapy, which helps people lessen their emotional conditioning. The cornerstone of deconditioning treatment is helping people turn off automatic responses through replacing emotional conditioning with thinking.

In undergoing deconditioning you discover how you were emotionally conditioned as a child and how you skew participation in your relationships. You learn to slow down and dissect the automatic responding that you and others do. You discover how to evaluate what the situation calls for with the involved people. Who needs what, how much, and from whom?

This book is written for both general readers and psychotherapists. Its novel approach for alleviating emotional illnesses in “ordinary” people is a welcome addition to the armamentarium of any therapist.

The book is extraordinarily well written. It offers valuable case vignettes, tables, and self-inquiry questions to assist in understanding the characteristics associated with each emotionally conditioned role. The authors also suggest reading materials and movies for viewing.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams have made the book very digestible, intriguing and practical. And it is a marvelous tribute to the value of a 30-year mentorship.

Judith R. Milner, MD, MEd, SpecEd, is a general, child, and adolescent psychiatrist in private practice in Everett, Wash. She has traveled with various groups over the years in an effort to alleviate some of the suffering caused by war and natural disaster. She has worked with Step Up Rwanda Women and Pygmy Survival Alliance, as well as on the Committee for Women at the American Psychiatric Association and the Consumer Issues Committee, the Committee on Diversity and Culture, and the Membership Committee for the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Rarely does someone come along who has new insight into behavior, someone who conceptualizes with such clarity that we wonder why we never saw it before.

Homer B. Martin, MD, was such a man. Over the course of 40 years’ psychodynamic psychotherapy work as a psychiatrist, he pieced together a concept of how we are emotionally conditioned in the first 3 years of life and how this conditioning affects us throughout our lives. Conditioning forces us to live on autopilot, creating inappropriate knee-jerk emotional responses to those closest to us.

Dr. Martin’s protégé, child and adolescent psychiatrist Christine B.L. Adams, MD, contributed her own 40 years of clinical practice as a psychodynamic psychotherapist to Dr. Martin’s new concept of emotional conditioning. Their findings are published in the award-winning book “Living on Automatic: How Emotional Conditioning Shapes our Lives and Relationships” (Praeger, 2018).

The authors aim to help both therapists and patients out of the quagmire of conflicted relationships and emotional illnesses that result from emotional conditioning. They propose a new understanding of personality development and subsequent relationship conflict, which incorporates work of Pavlov, Skinner, and Lorenz, along with techniques of Freud.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams discovered that we are conditioned into one of two roles – omnipotent and impotent. Those roles become the bedrock of our personalities. We display those roles in marriages, with our children, friends, and colleagues, without regard to gender.

Each role exists on a continuum, from mild to severe, determined by upbringing in the family. Once you acquire a role in childhood, the role is reinforced by both family and society at large – peers, teachers, and friends.

The authors unveil a new conceptualization of how the mind works for each role – thinking style, ways of elaborating emotions, attitudes, personal standards, value systems, reality testing mode, quality of thought, and mode of commitment.

The book has three sections. “Part One, Understanding Emotional Conditioning” describes the basic concepts, the effects of conditioning, and the two personality types. “Part Two, Relationship Struggles: Miscommunications and Marriages” examines marriage conflict, divorce, and living single. “Part Three, Solutions: Psychotherapy and Deconditioning” presents steps we can take to decondition ourselves, as well as the process of deconditioning psychotherapy.

To escape automatic living, Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams endorse the use of deconditioning psychotherapy, which helps people lessen their emotional conditioning. The cornerstone of deconditioning treatment is helping people turn off automatic responses through replacing emotional conditioning with thinking.

In undergoing deconditioning you discover how you were emotionally conditioned as a child and how you skew participation in your relationships. You learn to slow down and dissect the automatic responding that you and others do. You discover how to evaluate what the situation calls for with the involved people. Who needs what, how much, and from whom?

This book is written for both general readers and psychotherapists. Its novel approach for alleviating emotional illnesses in “ordinary” people is a welcome addition to the armamentarium of any therapist.

The book is extraordinarily well written. It offers valuable case vignettes, tables, and self-inquiry questions to assist in understanding the characteristics associated with each emotionally conditioned role. The authors also suggest reading materials and movies for viewing.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams have made the book very digestible, intriguing and practical. And it is a marvelous tribute to the value of a 30-year mentorship.

Judith R. Milner, MD, MEd, SpecEd, is a general, child, and adolescent psychiatrist in private practice in Everett, Wash. She has traveled with various groups over the years in an effort to alleviate some of the suffering caused by war and natural disaster. She has worked with Step Up Rwanda Women and Pygmy Survival Alliance, as well as on the Committee for Women at the American Psychiatric Association and the Consumer Issues Committee, the Committee on Diversity and Culture, and the Membership Committee for the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Rarely does someone come along who has new insight into behavior, someone who conceptualizes with such clarity that we wonder why we never saw it before.

Homer B. Martin, MD, was such a man. Over the course of 40 years’ psychodynamic psychotherapy work as a psychiatrist, he pieced together a concept of how we are emotionally conditioned in the first 3 years of life and how this conditioning affects us throughout our lives. Conditioning forces us to live on autopilot, creating inappropriate knee-jerk emotional responses to those closest to us.

Dr. Martin’s protégé, child and adolescent psychiatrist Christine B.L. Adams, MD, contributed her own 40 years of clinical practice as a psychodynamic psychotherapist to Dr. Martin’s new concept of emotional conditioning. Their findings are published in the award-winning book “Living on Automatic: How Emotional Conditioning Shapes our Lives and Relationships” (Praeger, 2018).

The authors aim to help both therapists and patients out of the quagmire of conflicted relationships and emotional illnesses that result from emotional conditioning. They propose a new understanding of personality development and subsequent relationship conflict, which incorporates work of Pavlov, Skinner, and Lorenz, along with techniques of Freud.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams discovered that we are conditioned into one of two roles – omnipotent and impotent. Those roles become the bedrock of our personalities. We display those roles in marriages, with our children, friends, and colleagues, without regard to gender.

Each role exists on a continuum, from mild to severe, determined by upbringing in the family. Once you acquire a role in childhood, the role is reinforced by both family and society at large – peers, teachers, and friends.

The authors unveil a new conceptualization of how the mind works for each role – thinking style, ways of elaborating emotions, attitudes, personal standards, value systems, reality testing mode, quality of thought, and mode of commitment.

The book has three sections. “Part One, Understanding Emotional Conditioning” describes the basic concepts, the effects of conditioning, and the two personality types. “Part Two, Relationship Struggles: Miscommunications and Marriages” examines marriage conflict, divorce, and living single. “Part Three, Solutions: Psychotherapy and Deconditioning” presents steps we can take to decondition ourselves, as well as the process of deconditioning psychotherapy.

To escape automatic living, Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams endorse the use of deconditioning psychotherapy, which helps people lessen their emotional conditioning. The cornerstone of deconditioning treatment is helping people turn off automatic responses through replacing emotional conditioning with thinking.

In undergoing deconditioning you discover how you were emotionally conditioned as a child and how you skew participation in your relationships. You learn to slow down and dissect the automatic responding that you and others do. You discover how to evaluate what the situation calls for with the involved people. Who needs what, how much, and from whom?

This book is written for both general readers and psychotherapists. Its novel approach for alleviating emotional illnesses in “ordinary” people is a welcome addition to the armamentarium of any therapist.

The book is extraordinarily well written. It offers valuable case vignettes, tables, and self-inquiry questions to assist in understanding the characteristics associated with each emotionally conditioned role. The authors also suggest reading materials and movies for viewing.

Dr. Martin and Dr. Adams have made the book very digestible, intriguing and practical. And it is a marvelous tribute to the value of a 30-year mentorship.

Judith R. Milner, MD, MEd, SpecEd, is a general, child, and adolescent psychiatrist in private practice in Everett, Wash. She has traveled with various groups over the years in an effort to alleviate some of the suffering caused by war and natural disaster. She has worked with Step Up Rwanda Women and Pygmy Survival Alliance, as well as on the Committee for Women at the American Psychiatric Association and the Consumer Issues Committee, the Committee on Diversity and Culture, and the Membership Committee for the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

In general, when a medication goes off patent, marketing for it significantly slows down or comes to a halt. Studies have shown that physicians’ prescribing habits are influenced by pharmaceutical representatives and companies.¹ This phenomenon may have an unforeseen adverse effect: once an effective and inexpensive medication “goes generic,” its use may fall out of favor. Additionally, physicians may have concerns about prescribing generic medications, such as perceiving them as less effective and conferring more adverse effects compared with brand-name formulations.² One such generic medication is buspirone, which originally was branded as BuSpar.

Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric diagnoses, and at times are the most challenging to treat.³ Anecdotally, we often see benzodiazepines prescribed as first-line monotherapy for acute and chronic anxiety, but because these agents can cause physical dependence and a withdrawal reaction, alternative anxiolytic medications should be strongly considered. Despite its age, buspirone still plays a role in the treatment of anxiety, and its off-label use can also be useful in certain populations and scenarios. In this article, we delve into buspirone’s mechanism of action, discuss its advantages and challenges, and what you need to know when prescribing it.

How buspirone works

Buspirone was originally described as an anxiolytic agent that was pharmacologically unrelated to traditional anxiety-reducing medications (ie, benzodiazepines and barbiturates).⁴ It has a high affinity for the 5-hydroxytryptamine 1A (5HT1A) receptor and may also act as a central dopamine antagonist at D2 receptors.^4,5 It is FDA-approved only for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).⁴ Buspirone also is commonly used as an augmenting agent to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of medication-resistant or partially treated depression.⁶ When a patient who is depressed appears to have marginal to no response to an adequate trial of a first-line agent, buspirone is thought to replenish depleted stores and/or increase synthesis of serotonin. Additionally, it acts directly on 5HT1A autoreceptors to achieve the desired desensitization of those receptors. All of these proposed mechanisms are thought to improve symptoms of depression.⁶

The antidepressants vortioxetine and vilazodone exhibit dual-action at both serotonin reuptake transporters and 5HT1A receptors; thus, they work like an SSRI and buspirone combined.⁶ Although some patients may find it more convenient to take a dual-action pill over 2 separate ones, some insurance companies do not cover these newer agents. Additionally, prescribing buspirone separately allows for more precise dosing, which may lower the risk of adverse effects.

Buspirone is a major substrate for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and a minor for CYP2D6, so caution must be advised if considering buspirone for a patient receiving any CYP3A4 inducers and/or inhibitors,⁷ including grapefruit juice.⁸

Dose adjustments are not necessary for age and sex, which allows for highly consistent dosing.⁴ However, as with prescribing medications in any geriatric population, lower starting doses and slower titration of buspirone may be necessary to avoid potential adverse effects due to the alterations of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic processes that occur as patients age.⁹

Advantages of buspirone

Works well as an add-on to other medications. While buspirone in adequate doses may be helpful as monotherapy in GAD, it can also be helpful in other, more complex psychiatric scenarios. Sumiyoshi et al¹⁰ observed improvement in scores on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test when buspirone was added to a second-generation antipsychotic (SGA), which suggests buspirone may help improve attention in patients with schizophrenia. It has been postulated that buspirone may also be helpful for cognitive dysfunction in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.¹¹ Buspirone has been used to treat comorbid anxiety and alcohol use disorder, resulting in reduced anxiety, longer latency to relapse, and fewer drinking days during a 12-week treatment program.¹² Buspirone has been more effective than placebo for treating post-stroke anxiety.¹³

Continue to: Patients who receive...

Patients who receive an SSRI, such as citalopram, but are not able to achieve a substantial improvement in their depressive and/or anxious symptoms may benefit from the addition of buspirone to their treatment regimen.^14,15

A favorable adverse-effect profile. There are no absolute contraindications to buspirone except a history of hypersensitivity.⁴ Buspirone generally is well tolerated and carries a low risk of adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are dizziness and nausea.⁶ Buspirone is not sedating.

Potentially safe for patients who are pregnant. Unlike many other first-line agents for anxiety, such as SSRIs, buspirone has an FDA Category B classification, meaning animal studies have shown no adverse events during pregnancy.⁴ The FDA Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule applies only to medications that entered the market on or after June 30, 2001; unfortunately, buspirone is excluded from this updated categorization.¹⁶ As with any medication being considered for pregnant or lactating women, the prescriber and patient must weigh the benefits vs the risks to determine if buspirone is appropriate for any individual patient.

No adverse events have been reported from abrupt discontinuation of buspirone.¹⁷

Inexpensive. Buspirone is generic and extremely inexpensive. According to GoodRx.com, a 30-day supply of 5-mg tablets for twice-daily dosing can cost $4.¹⁸ A maximum daily dose (prescribed as 2 pills, 15 mg twice daily) may cost approximately $18/month.¹⁸ Thus, buspirone is a good option for uninsured or underinsured patients, for whom this would be more affordable than other anxiolytic medications.

Continue to: May offset certain adverse effects

May offset certain adverse effects. Sexual dysfunction is a common adverse effect of SSRIs. One strategy to offset this phenomenon is to add bupropion. However, in a randomized controlled trial, Landén et al¹⁹ found that sexual adverse effects induced by SSRIs were greatly mitigated by adding buspirone, even within the first week of treatment. This improvement was more marked in women than in men, which is helpful because sexual dysfunction in women is generally resistant to other interventions.²⁰ Unlike bupropion, buspirone is not contraindicated in patients with seizure and/or eating disorders.⁴ Additionally, the American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder identify buspirone as a useful strategy in treating erectile dysfunction and orgasmic dysfunction due to SSRI treatment.¹⁵

Unlikely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Because of its central D2 antagonism, buspirone has a low potential (<1%) to produce EPS. Buspirone has even been shown to reverse haloperidol-induced EPS.²¹

The Table⁴ highlights key points to bear in mind when prescribing buspirone.

Challenges with buspirone

Response is not immediate. Unlike benzodiazepines, buspirone does not have an immediate onset of action.²² With buspirone monotherapy, response may be seen in approximately 2 to 4 weeks.²³ Therefore, patients transitioning from a quick-onset benzodiazepine to buspirone may not report a good response. However, as noted above, when using buspirone to treat SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction, response may emerge within 1 week.¹⁹ Buspirone also lacks the euphoric and sedative qualities of benzodiazepines that patients may prefer.

Not for patients with hepatic and renal impairment. Because plasma levels of buspirone are elevated in patients with hepatic and renal impairment, this medication is not ideal for use in these populations.⁴

Continue to: Contraindicated in patients receiving MAOIs

Contraindicated in patients receiving MAOIs. Buspirone should not be prescribed to patients with depression who are receiving treatment with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) because the combination may precipitate a hypertensive reaction.⁴ A minimum washout period of 14 days from the MAOI is necessary before initiating buspirone.⁹

Idiosyncratic adverse effects. As with all pharmaceuticals, buspirone may produce idiosyncratic adverse effects. Faber and Sansone²⁴ reported a case of a woman who experienced hair loss 3 months into treatment with buspirone. After cessation, her alopecia resolved.

Questionable efficacy for some anxiety subtypes. Buspirone has been studied as a treatment of other common psychiatric conditions, such as social phobia and anxiety in the setting of smoking cessation. However, it has not proven to be effective over placebo in treating these anxiety subtypes.^25,26

Short half-life. Because of its relatively short half-life (2 to 3 hours), buspirone requires dosing 2 to 3 times a day, which could increase the risk of noncompliance.⁴ However, some patients might prefer multiple dosing throughout the day due to perceived better coverage of their anxiety symptoms.

Limited incentive for future research. Because buspirone is available only as a generic formulation, there is little financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies and other interested parties to study what may be valuable uses for buspirone. For example, there is no data available on comparative augmentation of buspirone and SGAs with antidepressants for depression and/or anxiety. There is also little data available about buspirone prescribing trends or why buspirone may be under­utilized in clinical practice today.

Continue to: Unfortunately, historical and longitudinal...

Unfortunately, historical and longitudinal data on the prescribing practices of buspirone is limited because the original branded medication, BuSpar, is no longer on the market. However, this medication offers multiple advantages over other agents used to treat anxiety, and it should not be forgotten when formulating a treatment regimen for patients with anxiety and/or depression.

Bottom Line

Buspirone is a safe, low-cost, effective treatment option for patients with anxiety and may be helpful as an augmenting agent for depression. Because of its efficacy and high degree of tolerability, it should be prioritized higher in our treatment algorithms and be a part of our routine pharmacologic armamentarium.

Related Resources

• Howland RH. Buspirone: Back to the future. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2015;53(11):21-24.
• Strawn JR, Mills JA, Cornwall GJ, et al. Buspirone in children and adolescents with anxiety: a review and Bayesian analysis of abandoned randomized controlled trials. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2018;28(1):2-9.

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Buspirone • BuSpar
Citalopram • Celexa
Haloperidol • Haldol
Vilazodone • Viibryd
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

In general, when a medication goes off patent, marketing for it significantly slows down or comes to a halt. Studies have shown that physicians’ prescribing habits are influenced by pharmaceutical representatives and companies.¹ This phenomenon may have an unforeseen adverse effect: once an effective and inexpensive medication “goes generic,” its use may fall out of favor. Additionally, physicians may have concerns about prescribing generic medications, such as perceiving them as less effective and conferring more adverse effects compared with brand-name formulations.² One such generic medication is buspirone, which originally was branded as BuSpar.

Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric diagnoses, and at times are the most challenging to treat.³ Anecdotally, we often see benzodiazepines prescribed as first-line monotherapy for acute and chronic anxiety, but because these agents can cause physical dependence and a withdrawal reaction, alternative anxiolytic medications should be strongly considered. Despite its age, buspirone still plays a role in the treatment of anxiety, and its off-label use can also be useful in certain populations and scenarios. In this article, we delve into buspirone’s mechanism of action, discuss its advantages and challenges, and what you need to know when prescribing it.

How buspirone works

Buspirone was originally described as an anxiolytic agent that was pharmacologically unrelated to traditional anxiety-reducing medications (ie, benzodiazepines and barbiturates).⁴ It has a high affinity for the 5-hydroxytryptamine 1A (5HT1A) receptor and may also act as a central dopamine antagonist at D2 receptors.^4,5 It is FDA-approved only for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).⁴ Buspirone also is commonly used as an augmenting agent to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of medication-resistant or partially treated depression.⁶ When a patient who is depressed appears to have marginal to no response to an adequate trial of a first-line agent, buspirone is thought to replenish depleted stores and/or increase synthesis of serotonin. Additionally, it acts directly on 5HT1A autoreceptors to achieve the desired desensitization of those receptors. All of these proposed mechanisms are thought to improve symptoms of depression.⁶

The antidepressants vortioxetine and vilazodone exhibit dual-action at both serotonin reuptake transporters and 5HT1A receptors; thus, they work like an SSRI and buspirone combined.⁶ Although some patients may find it more convenient to take a dual-action pill over 2 separate ones, some insurance companies do not cover these newer agents. Additionally, prescribing buspirone separately allows for more precise dosing, which may lower the risk of adverse effects.

Buspirone is a major substrate for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and a minor for CYP2D6, so caution must be advised if considering buspirone for a patient receiving any CYP3A4 inducers and/or inhibitors,⁷ including grapefruit juice.⁸

Dose adjustments are not necessary for age and sex, which allows for highly consistent dosing.⁴ However, as with prescribing medications in any geriatric population, lower starting doses and slower titration of buspirone may be necessary to avoid potential adverse effects due to the alterations of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic processes that occur as patients age.⁹

Advantages of buspirone

Works well as an add-on to other medications. While buspirone in adequate doses may be helpful as monotherapy in GAD, it can also be helpful in other, more complex psychiatric scenarios. Sumiyoshi et al¹⁰ observed improvement in scores on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test when buspirone was added to a second-generation antipsychotic (SGA), which suggests buspirone may help improve attention in patients with schizophrenia. It has been postulated that buspirone may also be helpful for cognitive dysfunction in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.¹¹ Buspirone has been used to treat comorbid anxiety and alcohol use disorder, resulting in reduced anxiety, longer latency to relapse, and fewer drinking days during a 12-week treatment program.¹² Buspirone has been more effective than placebo for treating post-stroke anxiety.¹³

Continue to: Patients who receive...

Patients who receive an SSRI, such as citalopram, but are not able to achieve a substantial improvement in their depressive and/or anxious symptoms may benefit from the addition of buspirone to their treatment regimen.^14,15

A favorable adverse-effect profile. There are no absolute contraindications to buspirone except a history of hypersensitivity.⁴ Buspirone generally is well tolerated and carries a low risk of adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are dizziness and nausea.⁶ Buspirone is not sedating.

Potentially safe for patients who are pregnant. Unlike many other first-line agents for anxiety, such as SSRIs, buspirone has an FDA Category B classification, meaning animal studies have shown no adverse events during pregnancy.⁴ The FDA Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule applies only to medications that entered the market on or after June 30, 2001; unfortunately, buspirone is excluded from this updated categorization.¹⁶ As with any medication being considered for pregnant or lactating women, the prescriber and patient must weigh the benefits vs the risks to determine if buspirone is appropriate for any individual patient.

No adverse events have been reported from abrupt discontinuation of buspirone.¹⁷

Inexpensive. Buspirone is generic and extremely inexpensive. According to GoodRx.com, a 30-day supply of 5-mg tablets for twice-daily dosing can cost $4.¹⁸ A maximum daily dose (prescribed as 2 pills, 15 mg twice daily) may cost approximately $18/month.¹⁸ Thus, buspirone is a good option for uninsured or underinsured patients, for whom this would be more affordable than other anxiolytic medications.

Continue to: May offset certain adverse effects

May offset certain adverse effects. Sexual dysfunction is a common adverse effect of SSRIs. One strategy to offset this phenomenon is to add bupropion. However, in a randomized controlled trial, Landén et al¹⁹ found that sexual adverse effects induced by SSRIs were greatly mitigated by adding buspirone, even within the first week of treatment. This improvement was more marked in women than in men, which is helpful because sexual dysfunction in women is generally resistant to other interventions.²⁰ Unlike bupropion, buspirone is not contraindicated in patients with seizure and/or eating disorders.⁴ Additionally, the American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder identify buspirone as a useful strategy in treating erectile dysfunction and orgasmic dysfunction due to SSRI treatment.¹⁵

Unlikely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Because of its central D2 antagonism, buspirone has a low potential (<1%) to produce EPS. Buspirone has even been shown to reverse haloperidol-induced EPS.²¹

The Table⁴ highlights key points to bear in mind when prescribing buspirone.

Challenges with buspirone

Response is not immediate. Unlike benzodiazepines, buspirone does not have an immediate onset of action.²² With buspirone monotherapy, response may be seen in approximately 2 to 4 weeks.²³ Therefore, patients transitioning from a quick-onset benzodiazepine to buspirone may not report a good response. However, as noted above, when using buspirone to treat SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction, response may emerge within 1 week.¹⁹ Buspirone also lacks the euphoric and sedative qualities of benzodiazepines that patients may prefer.

Not for patients with hepatic and renal impairment. Because plasma levels of buspirone are elevated in patients with hepatic and renal impairment, this medication is not ideal for use in these populations.⁴

Continue to: Contraindicated in patients receiving MAOIs

Contraindicated in patients receiving MAOIs. Buspirone should not be prescribed to patients with depression who are receiving treatment with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) because the combination may precipitate a hypertensive reaction.⁴ A minimum washout period of 14 days from the MAOI is necessary before initiating buspirone.⁹

Idiosyncratic adverse effects. As with all pharmaceuticals, buspirone may produce idiosyncratic adverse effects. Faber and Sansone²⁴ reported a case of a woman who experienced hair loss 3 months into treatment with buspirone. After cessation, her alopecia resolved.

Questionable efficacy for some anxiety subtypes. Buspirone has been studied as a treatment of other common psychiatric conditions, such as social phobia and anxiety in the setting of smoking cessation. However, it has not proven to be effective over placebo in treating these anxiety subtypes.^25,26

Short half-life. Because of its relatively short half-life (2 to 3 hours), buspirone requires dosing 2 to 3 times a day, which could increase the risk of noncompliance.⁴ However, some patients might prefer multiple dosing throughout the day due to perceived better coverage of their anxiety symptoms.

Limited incentive for future research. Because buspirone is available only as a generic formulation, there is little financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies and other interested parties to study what may be valuable uses for buspirone. For example, there is no data available on comparative augmentation of buspirone and SGAs with antidepressants for depression and/or anxiety. There is also little data available about buspirone prescribing trends or why buspirone may be under­utilized in clinical practice today.

Continue to: Unfortunately, historical and longitudinal...

Unfortunately, historical and longitudinal data on the prescribing practices of buspirone is limited because the original branded medication, BuSpar, is no longer on the market. However, this medication offers multiple advantages over other agents used to treat anxiety, and it should not be forgotten when formulating a treatment regimen for patients with anxiety and/or depression.

Bottom Line

Buspirone is a safe, low-cost, effective treatment option for patients with anxiety and may be helpful as an augmenting agent for depression. Because of its efficacy and high degree of tolerability, it should be prioritized higher in our treatment algorithms and be a part of our routine pharmacologic armamentarium.

Related Resources

• Howland RH. Buspirone: Back to the future. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2015;53(11):21-24.
• Strawn JR, Mills JA, Cornwall GJ, et al. Buspirone in children and adolescents with anxiety: a review and Bayesian analysis of abandoned randomized controlled trials. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2018;28(1):2-9.

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Buspirone • BuSpar
Citalopram • Celexa
Haloperidol • Haldol
Vilazodone • Viibryd
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

In general, when a medication goes off patent, marketing for it significantly slows down or comes to a halt. Studies have shown that physicians’ prescribing habits are influenced by pharmaceutical representatives and companies.¹ This phenomenon may have an unforeseen adverse effect: once an effective and inexpensive medication “goes generic,” its use may fall out of favor. Additionally, physicians may have concerns about prescribing generic medications, such as perceiving them as less effective and conferring more adverse effects compared with brand-name formulations.² One such generic medication is buspirone, which originally was branded as BuSpar.

Anxiety disorders are the most common psychiatric diagnoses, and at times are the most challenging to treat.³ Anecdotally, we often see benzodiazepines prescribed as first-line monotherapy for acute and chronic anxiety, but because these agents can cause physical dependence and a withdrawal reaction, alternative anxiolytic medications should be strongly considered. Despite its age, buspirone still plays a role in the treatment of anxiety, and its off-label use can also be useful in certain populations and scenarios. In this article, we delve into buspirone’s mechanism of action, discuss its advantages and challenges, and what you need to know when prescribing it.

How buspirone works

Buspirone was originally described as an anxiolytic agent that was pharmacologically unrelated to traditional anxiety-reducing medications (ie, benzodiazepines and barbiturates).⁴ It has a high affinity for the 5-hydroxytryptamine 1A (5HT1A) receptor and may also act as a central dopamine antagonist at D2 receptors.^4,5 It is FDA-approved only for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).⁴ Buspirone also is commonly used as an augmenting agent to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of medication-resistant or partially treated depression.⁶ When a patient who is depressed appears to have marginal to no response to an adequate trial of a first-line agent, buspirone is thought to replenish depleted stores and/or increase synthesis of serotonin. Additionally, it acts directly on 5HT1A autoreceptors to achieve the desired desensitization of those receptors. All of these proposed mechanisms are thought to improve symptoms of depression.⁶

The antidepressants vortioxetine and vilazodone exhibit dual-action at both serotonin reuptake transporters and 5HT1A receptors; thus, they work like an SSRI and buspirone combined.⁶ Although some patients may find it more convenient to take a dual-action pill over 2 separate ones, some insurance companies do not cover these newer agents. Additionally, prescribing buspirone separately allows for more precise dosing, which may lower the risk of adverse effects.

Buspirone is a major substrate for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and a minor for CYP2D6, so caution must be advised if considering buspirone for a patient receiving any CYP3A4 inducers and/or inhibitors,⁷ including grapefruit juice.⁸

Dose adjustments are not necessary for age and sex, which allows for highly consistent dosing.⁴ However, as with prescribing medications in any geriatric population, lower starting doses and slower titration of buspirone may be necessary to avoid potential adverse effects due to the alterations of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic processes that occur as patients age.⁹

Advantages of buspirone

Works well as an add-on to other medications. While buspirone in adequate doses may be helpful as monotherapy in GAD, it can also be helpful in other, more complex psychiatric scenarios. Sumiyoshi et al¹⁰ observed improvement in scores on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test when buspirone was added to a second-generation antipsychotic (SGA), which suggests buspirone may help improve attention in patients with schizophrenia. It has been postulated that buspirone may also be helpful for cognitive dysfunction in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.¹¹ Buspirone has been used to treat comorbid anxiety and alcohol use disorder, resulting in reduced anxiety, longer latency to relapse, and fewer drinking days during a 12-week treatment program.¹² Buspirone has been more effective than placebo for treating post-stroke anxiety.¹³

Continue to: Patients who receive...

Patients who receive an SSRI, such as citalopram, but are not able to achieve a substantial improvement in their depressive and/or anxious symptoms may benefit from the addition of buspirone to their treatment regimen.^14,15

A favorable adverse-effect profile. There are no absolute contraindications to buspirone except a history of hypersensitivity.⁴ Buspirone generally is well tolerated and carries a low risk of adverse effects. The most common adverse effects are dizziness and nausea.⁶ Buspirone is not sedating.

Potentially safe for patients who are pregnant. Unlike many other first-line agents for anxiety, such as SSRIs, buspirone has an FDA Category B classification, meaning animal studies have shown no adverse events during pregnancy.⁴ The FDA Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule applies only to medications that entered the market on or after June 30, 2001; unfortunately, buspirone is excluded from this updated categorization.¹⁶ As with any medication being considered for pregnant or lactating women, the prescriber and patient must weigh the benefits vs the risks to determine if buspirone is appropriate for any individual patient.

No adverse events have been reported from abrupt discontinuation of buspirone.¹⁷

Inexpensive. Buspirone is generic and extremely inexpensive. According to GoodRx.com, a 30-day supply of 5-mg tablets for twice-daily dosing can cost $4.¹⁸ A maximum daily dose (prescribed as 2 pills, 15 mg twice daily) may cost approximately $18/month.¹⁸ Thus, buspirone is a good option for uninsured or underinsured patients, for whom this would be more affordable than other anxiolytic medications.

Continue to: May offset certain adverse effects

May offset certain adverse effects. Sexual dysfunction is a common adverse effect of SSRIs. One strategy to offset this phenomenon is to add bupropion. However, in a randomized controlled trial, Landén et al¹⁹ found that sexual adverse effects induced by SSRIs were greatly mitigated by adding buspirone, even within the first week of treatment. This improvement was more marked in women than in men, which is helpful because sexual dysfunction in women is generally resistant to other interventions.²⁰ Unlike bupropion, buspirone is not contraindicated in patients with seizure and/or eating disorders.⁴ Additionally, the American Psychiatric Association practice guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder identify buspirone as a useful strategy in treating erectile dysfunction and orgasmic dysfunction due to SSRI treatment.¹⁵

Unlikely to cause extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Because of its central D2 antagonism, buspirone has a low potential (<1%) to produce EPS. Buspirone has even been shown to reverse haloperidol-induced EPS.²¹

The Table⁴ highlights key points to bear in mind when prescribing buspirone.

Challenges with buspirone

Response is not immediate. Unlike benzodiazepines, buspirone does not have an immediate onset of action.²² With buspirone monotherapy, response may be seen in approximately 2 to 4 weeks.²³ Therefore, patients transitioning from a quick-onset benzodiazepine to buspirone may not report a good response. However, as noted above, when using buspirone to treat SSRI-induced sexual dysfunction, response may emerge within 1 week.¹⁹ Buspirone also lacks the euphoric and sedative qualities of benzodiazepines that patients may prefer.

Not for patients with hepatic and renal impairment. Because plasma levels of buspirone are elevated in patients with hepatic and renal impairment, this medication is not ideal for use in these populations.⁴

Continue to: Contraindicated in patients receiving MAOIs

Contraindicated in patients receiving MAOIs. Buspirone should not be prescribed to patients with depression who are receiving treatment with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) because the combination may precipitate a hypertensive reaction.⁴ A minimum washout period of 14 days from the MAOI is necessary before initiating buspirone.⁹

Idiosyncratic adverse effects. As with all pharmaceuticals, buspirone may produce idiosyncratic adverse effects. Faber and Sansone²⁴ reported a case of a woman who experienced hair loss 3 months into treatment with buspirone. After cessation, her alopecia resolved.

Questionable efficacy for some anxiety subtypes. Buspirone has been studied as a treatment of other common psychiatric conditions, such as social phobia and anxiety in the setting of smoking cessation. However, it has not proven to be effective over placebo in treating these anxiety subtypes.^25,26

Short half-life. Because of its relatively short half-life (2 to 3 hours), buspirone requires dosing 2 to 3 times a day, which could increase the risk of noncompliance.⁴ However, some patients might prefer multiple dosing throughout the day due to perceived better coverage of their anxiety symptoms.

Limited incentive for future research. Because buspirone is available only as a generic formulation, there is little financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies and other interested parties to study what may be valuable uses for buspirone. For example, there is no data available on comparative augmentation of buspirone and SGAs with antidepressants for depression and/or anxiety. There is also little data available about buspirone prescribing trends or why buspirone may be under­utilized in clinical practice today.

Continue to: Unfortunately, historical and longitudinal...

Unfortunately, historical and longitudinal data on the prescribing practices of buspirone is limited because the original branded medication, BuSpar, is no longer on the market. However, this medication offers multiple advantages over other agents used to treat anxiety, and it should not be forgotten when formulating a treatment regimen for patients with anxiety and/or depression.

Bottom Line

Buspirone is a safe, low-cost, effective treatment option for patients with anxiety and may be helpful as an augmenting agent for depression. Because of its efficacy and high degree of tolerability, it should be prioritized higher in our treatment algorithms and be a part of our routine pharmacologic armamentarium.

Related Resources

• Howland RH. Buspirone: Back to the future. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2015;53(11):21-24.
• Strawn JR, Mills JA, Cornwall GJ, et al. Buspirone in children and adolescents with anxiety: a review and Bayesian analysis of abandoned randomized controlled trials. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2018;28(1):2-9.

Drug Brand Names

Bupropion • Wellbutrin, Zyban
Buspirone • BuSpar
Citalopram • Celexa
Haloperidol • Haldol
Vilazodone • Viibryd
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

NEW ORLEANS – After Massachusetts passed antibullying legislation in 2009, Peter C. Raffalli, MD, saw an opportunity to improve care for the increasing numbers of children presenting to his neurology practice at Boston Children’s Hospital who were victims of bullying – especially those with developmental disabilities.

omgimages/thinkstockphotos.com

“I had been thinking of a clinic to help kids with these issues, aside from just helping them deal with the fallout: the depression, anxiety, et cetera, that comes with being bullied,” Dr. Raffalli recalled at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “I wanted to do something to help present to families the evidence-based strategies regarding bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that might help to stop the bullying.”

This led him to launch the Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention and Advocacy Collaborative (BACPAC) at Boston Children’s Hospital, which began in 2009 as an educational resource for families, medical colleagues, and schools. Dr. Raffalli also formed an alliance with the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University (Ann Neurol. 2016;79[2]:167-8).

Two years later in 2011, BACPAC became a formal clinic at Boston Children’s that serves as a subspecialty consult service for victims of bullying and their families. The clinic team consists of a child neurologist, a social worker, and an education resource specialist who meet with the bullying victim and his/her family in initial consultation for 90 minutes. The goal is to develop an evidence-based plan for bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that is individualized to the patient’s developmental and social needs.

“We tell families that bullying is recognized medically and legally as a form of abuse,” said Dr. Raffalli. “The medical and psychological consequences are similar to other forms of abuse. In the clinic, I explain to families that bullying is never the victim’s fault, and they should not blame themselves for the bullying. You’d be surprised how often patients do think the bullying is their fault.”
 

The extent of the problem

Researchers estimate that 25%-30% of children will experience some form of bullying between kindergarten and grade 12, and about 8% will engage in bullying themselves. When BACPAC began in 2009, Dr. Raffalli conducted an informal search of peer-reviewed literature on bullying in children with special needs; it yielded just four articles. “Since then, there’s been an exponential explosion of literature on various aspects of bullying,” he said. Now there is ample evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to show the increased risk for bullying/cyberbullying in children/teens, not just with neurodevelopmental disorders, but also for kids with other medical disorders such as obesity, asthma, and allergies.

“We’ve had a good number of kids over the years with peanut allergy who were literally threatened physically with peanut butter at school,” he said. “It’s incredible how callous some kids can be. Kids with oppositional defiant disorder, impulse control disorder, and callous/unemotional traits from a psychological standpoint are hardest to reach when it comes to getting them to stop bullying. You’d be surprised how frequently bullies use the phrase [to their victims], ‘You should kill yourself.’ They don’t realize the damage they’re doing to people. Bullying can lead to severe psychological but also long-term medical problems, including suicidal ideation.”

Published studies show that the highest incidences of bullying occur in children with neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, autistic spectrum disorders, Tourette syndrome, and other learning disabilities (Eur J Spec Needs Ed. 2010;25[1]:77-91). This population of children is overrepresented in bullying “because the services they receive at school make their disabilities more visible,” explained Dr. Raffalli, who is also an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They stand out, and they have social information–processing deficits or distortions that exacerbate bullying involvement. They also have difficulty interpreting social cues or attributing hostile characteristics to their peer’s behavior.”
 

The consequences of bullying

The psychological and educational consequences of bullying among children in general include being more likely to develop depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, alcohol and drug abuse, sleeping difficulties, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and attempts. “We’re social creatures, and when we don’t have those social connections, we get very depressed.”

Bullying victims also are more likely to develop school avoidance and absence, decreased school performance, poor concentration, high anxiety, and social withdrawal – all of which limit their opportunities to learn. “The No. 1 thing you can do to help these kids is to believe their story – to explain to them that it’s not their fault, and to explain that you are there for them and that you support them,” he said. “When a kid gets the feeling that someone is willing to listen to them and believe them, it does an enormous good for their emotional state.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Dr. Raffalli added that a toxic stress response can occur when a child experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity – such as physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, and/or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship – without adequate adult support. This kind of prolonged activation of the stress response systems can disrupt the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and increase the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into the adult years.

In the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, researchers set out to investigate what’s known about the long-term health effects of childhood bullying. They found that bullying can induce “aspects of the stress response, via epigenetic, inflammatory, and metabolic mediators [that] have the capacity to compromise mental and physical health, and to increase the risk of disease.” The researchers advised clinicians who care for children to assess the mental and physical health effects of bullying (Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2017;25[2]:89-95).

Additional vulnerabilities for bullying victims include parents and children whose primary language is not English, as well as parents with mental illness or substance abuse and families living in poverty. “We have to keep in mind how much additional stress they may be dealing with. This can make it harder for them to cope. Bullies also are shown to be at higher risk for psychological and legal trouble into adulthood, so we should be trying to help them too. We have to keep in mind that these are all developing kids.”
 

Cyberbullying

In Dr. Raffalli’s clinical experience, cyberbullying has become the bully’s weapon of choice. “I call it the stealth bomber of bullying,” he said. “Cyberbullying can start as early as the second or third grade. Most parents are not giving phones to second-graders. I’m worried that it’s going to get worse, though, with the excuse that ‘I feel safer if they have a cell phone so they can call me.’ I tell parents that they still make flip phones. You don’t have to get a smartphone for a second- or third-grader, or even for a sixth-grader.”

By the time kids reach fourth and fifth grade, he continued, they begin to form their opinion “about what they believe is cool and not cool, and they begin to get into cliques that have similar beliefs, and support each other, and may break off from old friends.” He added that, while adult predation “makes the news and is certainly something we should all be concerned about, the incidence of being harassed and bullied by someone in your own age group at school is actually much higher and still has serious outcomes, including the possibility of death.”

The Massachusetts antibullying law stipulates that all teachers and all school personnel have to participate in mandatory bullying training. Schools also are required to draft and follow a bullying investigative protocol.

“Apparently the schools have all done this, yet the number of times that schools use interventions that are not advisable, such as mediation, is incredible to me,” Dr. Raffalli said. “Bringing the bully and the victim together for a ‘cup of coffee and a handshake’ is not advisable. Mediation has been shown in a number of studies to be detrimental in bullying situations. Things can easily get worse.”

Often, family members who bring their child to the BACPAC “feel that their child’s school is not helping them,” he said. “We should try to figure out why those schools are having such a hard time and see if we can help them.”

Dr. Raffalli reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – After Massachusetts passed antibullying legislation in 2009, Peter C. Raffalli, MD, saw an opportunity to improve care for the increasing numbers of children presenting to his neurology practice at Boston Children’s Hospital who were victims of bullying – especially those with developmental disabilities.

omgimages/thinkstockphotos.com

“I had been thinking of a clinic to help kids with these issues, aside from just helping them deal with the fallout: the depression, anxiety, et cetera, that comes with being bullied,” Dr. Raffalli recalled at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “I wanted to do something to help present to families the evidence-based strategies regarding bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that might help to stop the bullying.”

This led him to launch the Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention and Advocacy Collaborative (BACPAC) at Boston Children’s Hospital, which began in 2009 as an educational resource for families, medical colleagues, and schools. Dr. Raffalli also formed an alliance with the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University (Ann Neurol. 2016;79[2]:167-8).

Two years later in 2011, BACPAC became a formal clinic at Boston Children’s that serves as a subspecialty consult service for victims of bullying and their families. The clinic team consists of a child neurologist, a social worker, and an education resource specialist who meet with the bullying victim and his/her family in initial consultation for 90 minutes. The goal is to develop an evidence-based plan for bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that is individualized to the patient’s developmental and social needs.

“We tell families that bullying is recognized medically and legally as a form of abuse,” said Dr. Raffalli. “The medical and psychological consequences are similar to other forms of abuse. In the clinic, I explain to families that bullying is never the victim’s fault, and they should not blame themselves for the bullying. You’d be surprised how often patients do think the bullying is their fault.”
 

The extent of the problem

Researchers estimate that 25%-30% of children will experience some form of bullying between kindergarten and grade 12, and about 8% will engage in bullying themselves. When BACPAC began in 2009, Dr. Raffalli conducted an informal search of peer-reviewed literature on bullying in children with special needs; it yielded just four articles. “Since then, there’s been an exponential explosion of literature on various aspects of bullying,” he said. Now there is ample evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to show the increased risk for bullying/cyberbullying in children/teens, not just with neurodevelopmental disorders, but also for kids with other medical disorders such as obesity, asthma, and allergies.

“We’ve had a good number of kids over the years with peanut allergy who were literally threatened physically with peanut butter at school,” he said. “It’s incredible how callous some kids can be. Kids with oppositional defiant disorder, impulse control disorder, and callous/unemotional traits from a psychological standpoint are hardest to reach when it comes to getting them to stop bullying. You’d be surprised how frequently bullies use the phrase [to their victims], ‘You should kill yourself.’ They don’t realize the damage they’re doing to people. Bullying can lead to severe psychological but also long-term medical problems, including suicidal ideation.”

Published studies show that the highest incidences of bullying occur in children with neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, autistic spectrum disorders, Tourette syndrome, and other learning disabilities (Eur J Spec Needs Ed. 2010;25[1]:77-91). This population of children is overrepresented in bullying “because the services they receive at school make their disabilities more visible,” explained Dr. Raffalli, who is also an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They stand out, and they have social information–processing deficits or distortions that exacerbate bullying involvement. They also have difficulty interpreting social cues or attributing hostile characteristics to their peer’s behavior.”
 

The consequences of bullying

The psychological and educational consequences of bullying among children in general include being more likely to develop depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, alcohol and drug abuse, sleeping difficulties, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and attempts. “We’re social creatures, and when we don’t have those social connections, we get very depressed.”

Bullying victims also are more likely to develop school avoidance and absence, decreased school performance, poor concentration, high anxiety, and social withdrawal – all of which limit their opportunities to learn. “The No. 1 thing you can do to help these kids is to believe their story – to explain to them that it’s not their fault, and to explain that you are there for them and that you support them,” he said. “When a kid gets the feeling that someone is willing to listen to them and believe them, it does an enormous good for their emotional state.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Dr. Raffalli added that a toxic stress response can occur when a child experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity – such as physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, and/or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship – without adequate adult support. This kind of prolonged activation of the stress response systems can disrupt the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and increase the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into the adult years.

In the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, researchers set out to investigate what’s known about the long-term health effects of childhood bullying. They found that bullying can induce “aspects of the stress response, via epigenetic, inflammatory, and metabolic mediators [that] have the capacity to compromise mental and physical health, and to increase the risk of disease.” The researchers advised clinicians who care for children to assess the mental and physical health effects of bullying (Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2017;25[2]:89-95).

Additional vulnerabilities for bullying victims include parents and children whose primary language is not English, as well as parents with mental illness or substance abuse and families living in poverty. “We have to keep in mind how much additional stress they may be dealing with. This can make it harder for them to cope. Bullies also are shown to be at higher risk for psychological and legal trouble into adulthood, so we should be trying to help them too. We have to keep in mind that these are all developing kids.”
 

Cyberbullying

In Dr. Raffalli’s clinical experience, cyberbullying has become the bully’s weapon of choice. “I call it the stealth bomber of bullying,” he said. “Cyberbullying can start as early as the second or third grade. Most parents are not giving phones to second-graders. I’m worried that it’s going to get worse, though, with the excuse that ‘I feel safer if they have a cell phone so they can call me.’ I tell parents that they still make flip phones. You don’t have to get a smartphone for a second- or third-grader, or even for a sixth-grader.”

By the time kids reach fourth and fifth grade, he continued, they begin to form their opinion “about what they believe is cool and not cool, and they begin to get into cliques that have similar beliefs, and support each other, and may break off from old friends.” He added that, while adult predation “makes the news and is certainly something we should all be concerned about, the incidence of being harassed and bullied by someone in your own age group at school is actually much higher and still has serious outcomes, including the possibility of death.”

The Massachusetts antibullying law stipulates that all teachers and all school personnel have to participate in mandatory bullying training. Schools also are required to draft and follow a bullying investigative protocol.

“Apparently the schools have all done this, yet the number of times that schools use interventions that are not advisable, such as mediation, is incredible to me,” Dr. Raffalli said. “Bringing the bully and the victim together for a ‘cup of coffee and a handshake’ is not advisable. Mediation has been shown in a number of studies to be detrimental in bullying situations. Things can easily get worse.”

Often, family members who bring their child to the BACPAC “feel that their child’s school is not helping them,” he said. “We should try to figure out why those schools are having such a hard time and see if we can help them.”

Dr. Raffalli reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – After Massachusetts passed antibullying legislation in 2009, Peter C. Raffalli, MD, saw an opportunity to improve care for the increasing numbers of children presenting to his neurology practice at Boston Children’s Hospital who were victims of bullying – especially those with developmental disabilities.

omgimages/thinkstockphotos.com

“I had been thinking of a clinic to help kids with these issues, aside from just helping them deal with the fallout: the depression, anxiety, et cetera, that comes with being bullied,” Dr. Raffalli recalled at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. “I wanted to do something to help present to families the evidence-based strategies regarding bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that might help to stop the bullying.”

This led him to launch the Bullying and Cyberbullying Prevention and Advocacy Collaborative (BACPAC) at Boston Children’s Hospital, which began in 2009 as an educational resource for families, medical colleagues, and schools. Dr. Raffalli also formed an alliance with the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center at Bridgewater State University (Ann Neurol. 2016;79[2]:167-8).

Two years later in 2011, BACPAC became a formal clinic at Boston Children’s that serves as a subspecialty consult service for victims of bullying and their families. The clinic team consists of a child neurologist, a social worker, and an education resource specialist who meet with the bullying victim and his/her family in initial consultation for 90 minutes. The goal is to develop an evidence-based plan for bullying prevention, detection, and intervention that is individualized to the patient’s developmental and social needs.

“We tell families that bullying is recognized medically and legally as a form of abuse,” said Dr. Raffalli. “The medical and psychological consequences are similar to other forms of abuse. In the clinic, I explain to families that bullying is never the victim’s fault, and they should not blame themselves for the bullying. You’d be surprised how often patients do think the bullying is their fault.”
 

The extent of the problem

Researchers estimate that 25%-30% of children will experience some form of bullying between kindergarten and grade 12, and about 8% will engage in bullying themselves. When BACPAC began in 2009, Dr. Raffalli conducted an informal search of peer-reviewed literature on bullying in children with special needs; it yielded just four articles. “Since then, there’s been an exponential explosion of literature on various aspects of bullying,” he said. Now there is ample evidence in the peer-reviewed literature to show the increased risk for bullying/cyberbullying in children/teens, not just with neurodevelopmental disorders, but also for kids with other medical disorders such as obesity, asthma, and allergies.

“We’ve had a good number of kids over the years with peanut allergy who were literally threatened physically with peanut butter at school,” he said. “It’s incredible how callous some kids can be. Kids with oppositional defiant disorder, impulse control disorder, and callous/unemotional traits from a psychological standpoint are hardest to reach when it comes to getting them to stop bullying. You’d be surprised how frequently bullies use the phrase [to their victims], ‘You should kill yourself.’ They don’t realize the damage they’re doing to people. Bullying can lead to severe psychological but also long-term medical problems, including suicidal ideation.”

Published studies show that the highest incidences of bullying occur in children with neurodevelopmental conditions such as ADHD, autistic spectrum disorders, Tourette syndrome, and other learning disabilities (Eur J Spec Needs Ed. 2010;25[1]:77-91). This population of children is overrepresented in bullying “because the services they receive at school make their disabilities more visible,” explained Dr. Raffalli, who is also an assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “They stand out, and they have social information–processing deficits or distortions that exacerbate bullying involvement. They also have difficulty interpreting social cues or attributing hostile characteristics to their peer’s behavior.”
 

The consequences of bullying

The psychological and educational consequences of bullying among children in general include being more likely to develop depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, alcohol and drug abuse, sleeping difficulties, self-harm, and suicidal ideation and attempts. “We’re social creatures, and when we don’t have those social connections, we get very depressed.”

Bullying victims also are more likely to develop school avoidance and absence, decreased school performance, poor concentration, high anxiety, and social withdrawal – all of which limit their opportunities to learn. “The No. 1 thing you can do to help these kids is to believe their story – to explain to them that it’s not their fault, and to explain that you are there for them and that you support them,” he said. “When a kid gets the feeling that someone is willing to listen to them and believe them, it does an enormous good for their emotional state.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

Dr. Raffalli added that a toxic stress response can occur when a child experiences strong, frequent, and/or prolonged adversity – such as physical or emotional abuse, chronic neglect, caregiver substance abuse or mental illness, exposure to violence, and/or the accumulated burdens of family economic hardship – without adequate adult support. This kind of prolonged activation of the stress response systems can disrupt the development of brain architecture and other organ systems, and increase the risk for stress-related disease and cognitive impairment well into the adult years.

In the Harvard Review of Psychiatry, researchers set out to investigate what’s known about the long-term health effects of childhood bullying. They found that bullying can induce “aspects of the stress response, via epigenetic, inflammatory, and metabolic mediators [that] have the capacity to compromise mental and physical health, and to increase the risk of disease.” The researchers advised clinicians who care for children to assess the mental and physical health effects of bullying (Harv Rev Psychiatry. 2017;25[2]:89-95).

Additional vulnerabilities for bullying victims include parents and children whose primary language is not English, as well as parents with mental illness or substance abuse and families living in poverty. “We have to keep in mind how much additional stress they may be dealing with. This can make it harder for them to cope. Bullies also are shown to be at higher risk for psychological and legal trouble into adulthood, so we should be trying to help them too. We have to keep in mind that these are all developing kids.”
 

Cyberbullying

In Dr. Raffalli’s clinical experience, cyberbullying has become the bully’s weapon of choice. “I call it the stealth bomber of bullying,” he said. “Cyberbullying can start as early as the second or third grade. Most parents are not giving phones to second-graders. I’m worried that it’s going to get worse, though, with the excuse that ‘I feel safer if they have a cell phone so they can call me.’ I tell parents that they still make flip phones. You don’t have to get a smartphone for a second- or third-grader, or even for a sixth-grader.”

By the time kids reach fourth and fifth grade, he continued, they begin to form their opinion “about what they believe is cool and not cool, and they begin to get into cliques that have similar beliefs, and support each other, and may break off from old friends.” He added that, while adult predation “makes the news and is certainly something we should all be concerned about, the incidence of being harassed and bullied by someone in your own age group at school is actually much higher and still has serious outcomes, including the possibility of death.”

The Massachusetts antibullying law stipulates that all teachers and all school personnel have to participate in mandatory bullying training. Schools also are required to draft and follow a bullying investigative protocol.

“Apparently the schools have all done this, yet the number of times that schools use interventions that are not advisable, such as mediation, is incredible to me,” Dr. Raffalli said. “Bringing the bully and the victim together for a ‘cup of coffee and a handshake’ is not advisable. Mediation has been shown in a number of studies to be detrimental in bullying situations. Things can easily get worse.”

Often, family members who bring their child to the BACPAC “feel that their child’s school is not helping them,” he said. “We should try to figure out why those schools are having such a hard time and see if we can help them.”

Dr. Raffalli reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder might be at significantly higher risk of bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, a new study suggests.

“This study supports the importance of early, ongoing surveillance, and targeted treatments to address the psychiatric needs of individuals with ASD,” wrote lead author Alexandra C. Kirsch, PhD, and associates. The report was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Kirsch and associates reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,014 individuals with autism spectrum disorder and 2,028 age-and sex-matched controls without autism spectrum disorder. They found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more than nine times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, 2.81 times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, and 3.45 times more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Significant psychosocial sequelae associated with having ASD, including difficulties developing and maintaining relationships, challenges succeeding academically and vocationally, and behaviors that can be problematic to manage, particularly increase risk for mood and anxiety symptoms in individuals with ASD,” wrote Dr. Kirsch of the department of psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and associates. “Individuals with ASD also experience greater rates of other mental health challenges, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse.”

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder who received a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder also were more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age than were those without autism. In the case of depression, the median age of diagnosis was 15.7 years, compared with 18.1 years among controls. For anxiety, the median age of diagnosis among individuals with autism spectrum disorder was 15.2 years, compared with 20.3 years for controls. For bipolar disorder, it was 20.3 years, compared with 27 years although the small number of individuals meant this was not statistically significant.

The authors suggested that the earlier age at diagnosis might reflect that individuals with autism spectrum disorder generally are monitored more closely, and are more likely to be connected to screening and diagnostic resources because of their original diagnosis.

The researchers also found that the increased risk of depression and anxiety was even higher among men with autism spectrum disorder, even though the cumulative incidence of these conditions was greater in women both with and without autism. In addition, the researchers noted that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more likely to be diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions than were those without autism.

Dr. Kirsch and associates cited several limitations. One is that the population studied came from Olmsted County, Minn., which is wealthier and less diverse than the general population. Nevertheless, the results could help guide treatments for patients with ASD.

“Given the high rates of comorbidity, researchers and practitioners should develop tools that are specific to the unique needs of this population and effective medications and treatments for mood and anxiety concerns, which remain limited in this population,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Kirsch A et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4368.

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder might be at significantly higher risk of bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, a new study suggests.

“This study supports the importance of early, ongoing surveillance, and targeted treatments to address the psychiatric needs of individuals with ASD,” wrote lead author Alexandra C. Kirsch, PhD, and associates. The report was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Kirsch and associates reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,014 individuals with autism spectrum disorder and 2,028 age-and sex-matched controls without autism spectrum disorder. They found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more than nine times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, 2.81 times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, and 3.45 times more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Significant psychosocial sequelae associated with having ASD, including difficulties developing and maintaining relationships, challenges succeeding academically and vocationally, and behaviors that can be problematic to manage, particularly increase risk for mood and anxiety symptoms in individuals with ASD,” wrote Dr. Kirsch of the department of psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and associates. “Individuals with ASD also experience greater rates of other mental health challenges, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse.”

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder who received a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder also were more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age than were those without autism. In the case of depression, the median age of diagnosis was 15.7 years, compared with 18.1 years among controls. For anxiety, the median age of diagnosis among individuals with autism spectrum disorder was 15.2 years, compared with 20.3 years for controls. For bipolar disorder, it was 20.3 years, compared with 27 years although the small number of individuals meant this was not statistically significant.

The authors suggested that the earlier age at diagnosis might reflect that individuals with autism spectrum disorder generally are monitored more closely, and are more likely to be connected to screening and diagnostic resources because of their original diagnosis.

The researchers also found that the increased risk of depression and anxiety was even higher among men with autism spectrum disorder, even though the cumulative incidence of these conditions was greater in women both with and without autism. In addition, the researchers noted that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more likely to be diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions than were those without autism.

Dr. Kirsch and associates cited several limitations. One is that the population studied came from Olmsted County, Minn., which is wealthier and less diverse than the general population. Nevertheless, the results could help guide treatments for patients with ASD.

“Given the high rates of comorbidity, researchers and practitioners should develop tools that are specific to the unique needs of this population and effective medications and treatments for mood and anxiety concerns, which remain limited in this population,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Kirsch A et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4368.

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder might be at significantly higher risk of bipolar disorder, anxiety, and depression, a new study suggests.

“This study supports the importance of early, ongoing surveillance, and targeted treatments to address the psychiatric needs of individuals with ASD,” wrote lead author Alexandra C. Kirsch, PhD, and associates. The report was published in JAMA Pediatrics.

Dr. Kirsch and associates reported the outcomes of a population-based cohort study involving 1,014 individuals with autism spectrum disorder and 2,028 age-and sex-matched controls without autism spectrum disorder. They found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more than nine times more likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder, 2.81 times more likely to be diagnosed with depression, and 3.45 times more likely to be diagnosed with anxiety, compared with controls.

“Significant psychosocial sequelae associated with having ASD, including difficulties developing and maintaining relationships, challenges succeeding academically and vocationally, and behaviors that can be problematic to manage, particularly increase risk for mood and anxiety symptoms in individuals with ASD,” wrote Dr. Kirsch of the department of psychiatry and psychology at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and associates. “Individuals with ASD also experience greater rates of other mental health challenges, including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and substance abuse.”

Individuals with autism spectrum disorder who received a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder also were more likely to be diagnosed at a younger age than were those without autism. In the case of depression, the median age of diagnosis was 15.7 years, compared with 18.1 years among controls. For anxiety, the median age of diagnosis among individuals with autism spectrum disorder was 15.2 years, compared with 20.3 years for controls. For bipolar disorder, it was 20.3 years, compared with 27 years although the small number of individuals meant this was not statistically significant.

The authors suggested that the earlier age at diagnosis might reflect that individuals with autism spectrum disorder generally are monitored more closely, and are more likely to be connected to screening and diagnostic resources because of their original diagnosis.

The researchers also found that the increased risk of depression and anxiety was even higher among men with autism spectrum disorder, even though the cumulative incidence of these conditions was greater in women both with and without autism. In addition, the researchers noted that individuals with autism spectrum disorder were more likely to be diagnosed with multiple psychiatric conditions than were those without autism.

Dr. Kirsch and associates cited several limitations. One is that the population studied came from Olmsted County, Minn., which is wealthier and less diverse than the general population. Nevertheless, the results could help guide treatments for patients with ASD.

“Given the high rates of comorbidity, researchers and practitioners should develop tools that are specific to the unique needs of this population and effective medications and treatments for mood and anxiety concerns, which remain limited in this population,” they wrote.

The study was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Public Health Service. No conflicts of interest were disclosed.

SOURCE: Kirsch A et al. JAMA Pediatr. 2019 Dec 2. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4368.

Although they are rare, in-flight psychiatric emergencies occur because of large numbers of passengers, nonstop flights over longer distances, delayed flights, cramped cabins, and/or alcohol consumption.^1,2 Psychiatric symptoms and substance intoxication/withdrawal each represent up to 3% of all in-flight emergencies, and in most cases (90%), the primary presentation is acute anxiety.^1,2 Common in-flight psychiatric differential diagnoses include depression, psychosis, personality disorders, and somatization.¹

When a passenger requires medical or psychiatric treatment, the flight crew often requests aid from any trained medical professionals who are on board to augment their capabilities and resources (eg, the flight crew’s training, ground-based medical support).¹ In the United States, off-duty medical professionals are not legally required to assist during an in-flight medical emergency.¹ The Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998 protects passengers who provide medical assistance from liability, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.^1,3 Flights outside of the United States are governed by a complex combination of public and private international laws.¹ Here I suggest how to initiate care during in-flight psychiatric emergencies, and offer therapeutic options to employ for a passenger who is exhibiting psychiatric symptoms.

What to do first

Before volunteering to assist in a mental health emergency, consider your capabilities and limitations. Do not volunteer if you are under the influence of alcohol, illicit substances, or any medications (prescription or over-the-counter) that could affect your judgment.

Inform the flight crew that you are a mental health clinician, and outline your current clinical expertise. While the flight crew obtains the medical emergency kit, work to establish rapport with the passenger to identify the psychiatric problem and help de-escalate the situation. Initiate care by¹:

• eliciting a psychiatric history
• inquiring about any use of alcohol, illicit substances, or other mood-altering substances (eg, type, amount, and time of use)
• identifying any use of psychotropic medications (eg, doses, last dose taken, and if these agents are on the aircraft).

The Federal Aviation Administration has minimum requirements for the contents of medical emergency kits aboard US airlines.^1,4 However, they are not required to contain antipsychotics, naloxone, or benzodiazepines.^1,4 Although you may have limited medical resources at your disposal, you can still help passengers in the following ways¹:

Monitor vital signs and mental status changes, identify signs and symptoms of intoxication or withdrawal, and assess for respiratory distress. Provide reassurance to the passenger if appropriate.¹

Administer naloxone (if available) for suspected opioid ingestion.¹ Antiemetics, which are available in these medical kits, can be used if needed. Encourage passengers to remain hydrated and use oxygen as needed.

Continue to: If verbal de-escalation is ineffective...

If verbal de-escalation is ineffective, consider administering a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic (if available).¹ If the passenger is combative, refer to the flight crew for the airline’s security protocols, which may include restraining the passenger or diverting the aircraft. Safety takes priority over attempts at medical management.

If the passenger has respiratory distress, instruct the flight crew to contact ground-based medical support for additional recommendations.¹

A challenging situation

Ultimately, the pilot coordinates with the flight dispatcher to manage all operational decisions for the aircraft and is responsible for decisions regarding flight diversion.¹ In-flight medical volunteers, the flight crew, and ground-based medical experts can offer recommendations for care.¹ Cruising at altitudes of 30,000 to 40,000 feet with limited medical equipment, often hours away from the closest medical facility, will create unfamiliar challenges for any medical professional who volunteers for in-flight psychiatric emergencies.¹

Although they are rare, in-flight psychiatric emergencies occur because of large numbers of passengers, nonstop flights over longer distances, delayed flights, cramped cabins, and/or alcohol consumption.^1,2 Psychiatric symptoms and substance intoxication/withdrawal each represent up to 3% of all in-flight emergencies, and in most cases (90%), the primary presentation is acute anxiety.^1,2 Common in-flight psychiatric differential diagnoses include depression, psychosis, personality disorders, and somatization.¹

When a passenger requires medical or psychiatric treatment, the flight crew often requests aid from any trained medical professionals who are on board to augment their capabilities and resources (eg, the flight crew’s training, ground-based medical support).¹ In the United States, off-duty medical professionals are not legally required to assist during an in-flight medical emergency.¹ The Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998 protects passengers who provide medical assistance from liability, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.^1,3 Flights outside of the United States are governed by a complex combination of public and private international laws.¹ Here I suggest how to initiate care during in-flight psychiatric emergencies, and offer therapeutic options to employ for a passenger who is exhibiting psychiatric symptoms.

What to do first

Before volunteering to assist in a mental health emergency, consider your capabilities and limitations. Do not volunteer if you are under the influence of alcohol, illicit substances, or any medications (prescription or over-the-counter) that could affect your judgment.

Inform the flight crew that you are a mental health clinician, and outline your current clinical expertise. While the flight crew obtains the medical emergency kit, work to establish rapport with the passenger to identify the psychiatric problem and help de-escalate the situation. Initiate care by¹:

• eliciting a psychiatric history
• inquiring about any use of alcohol, illicit substances, or other mood-altering substances (eg, type, amount, and time of use)
• identifying any use of psychotropic medications (eg, doses, last dose taken, and if these agents are on the aircraft).

The Federal Aviation Administration has minimum requirements for the contents of medical emergency kits aboard US airlines.^1,4 However, they are not required to contain antipsychotics, naloxone, or benzodiazepines.^1,4 Although you may have limited medical resources at your disposal, you can still help passengers in the following ways¹:

Monitor vital signs and mental status changes, identify signs and symptoms of intoxication or withdrawal, and assess for respiratory distress. Provide reassurance to the passenger if appropriate.¹

Administer naloxone (if available) for suspected opioid ingestion.¹ Antiemetics, which are available in these medical kits, can be used if needed. Encourage passengers to remain hydrated and use oxygen as needed.

Continue to: If verbal de-escalation is ineffective...

If verbal de-escalation is ineffective, consider administering a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic (if available).¹ If the passenger is combative, refer to the flight crew for the airline’s security protocols, which may include restraining the passenger or diverting the aircraft. Safety takes priority over attempts at medical management.

If the passenger has respiratory distress, instruct the flight crew to contact ground-based medical support for additional recommendations.¹

A challenging situation

Ultimately, the pilot coordinates with the flight dispatcher to manage all operational decisions for the aircraft and is responsible for decisions regarding flight diversion.¹ In-flight medical volunteers, the flight crew, and ground-based medical experts can offer recommendations for care.¹ Cruising at altitudes of 30,000 to 40,000 feet with limited medical equipment, often hours away from the closest medical facility, will create unfamiliar challenges for any medical professional who volunteers for in-flight psychiatric emergencies.¹

Although they are rare, in-flight psychiatric emergencies occur because of large numbers of passengers, nonstop flights over longer distances, delayed flights, cramped cabins, and/or alcohol consumption.^1,2 Psychiatric symptoms and substance intoxication/withdrawal each represent up to 3% of all in-flight emergencies, and in most cases (90%), the primary presentation is acute anxiety.^1,2 Common in-flight psychiatric differential diagnoses include depression, psychosis, personality disorders, and somatization.¹

When a passenger requires medical or psychiatric treatment, the flight crew often requests aid from any trained medical professionals who are on board to augment their capabilities and resources (eg, the flight crew’s training, ground-based medical support).¹ In the United States, off-duty medical professionals are not legally required to assist during an in-flight medical emergency.¹ The Aviation Medical Assistance Act of 1998 protects passengers who provide medical assistance from liability, except in cases of gross negligence or willful misconduct.^1,3 Flights outside of the United States are governed by a complex combination of public and private international laws.¹ Here I suggest how to initiate care during in-flight psychiatric emergencies, and offer therapeutic options to employ for a passenger who is exhibiting psychiatric symptoms.

What to do first

Before volunteering to assist in a mental health emergency, consider your capabilities and limitations. Do not volunteer if you are under the influence of alcohol, illicit substances, or any medications (prescription or over-the-counter) that could affect your judgment.

Inform the flight crew that you are a mental health clinician, and outline your current clinical expertise. While the flight crew obtains the medical emergency kit, work to establish rapport with the passenger to identify the psychiatric problem and help de-escalate the situation. Initiate care by¹:

• eliciting a psychiatric history
• inquiring about any use of alcohol, illicit substances, or other mood-altering substances (eg, type, amount, and time of use)
• identifying any use of psychotropic medications (eg, doses, last dose taken, and if these agents are on the aircraft).

The Federal Aviation Administration has minimum requirements for the contents of medical emergency kits aboard US airlines.^1,4 However, they are not required to contain antipsychotics, naloxone, or benzodiazepines.^1,4 Although you may have limited medical resources at your disposal, you can still help passengers in the following ways¹:

Monitor vital signs and mental status changes, identify signs and symptoms of intoxication or withdrawal, and assess for respiratory distress. Provide reassurance to the passenger if appropriate.¹

Administer naloxone (if available) for suspected opioid ingestion.¹ Antiemetics, which are available in these medical kits, can be used if needed. Encourage passengers to remain hydrated and use oxygen as needed.

Continue to: If verbal de-escalation is ineffective...

If verbal de-escalation is ineffective, consider administering a benzodiazepine or antipsychotic (if available).¹ If the passenger is combative, refer to the flight crew for the airline’s security protocols, which may include restraining the passenger or diverting the aircraft. Safety takes priority over attempts at medical management.

If the passenger has respiratory distress, instruct the flight crew to contact ground-based medical support for additional recommendations.¹

A challenging situation

Ultimately, the pilot coordinates with the flight dispatcher to manage all operational decisions for the aircraft and is responsible for decisions regarding flight diversion.¹ In-flight medical volunteers, the flight crew, and ground-based medical experts can offer recommendations for care.¹ Cruising at altitudes of 30,000 to 40,000 feet with limited medical equipment, often hours away from the closest medical facility, will create unfamiliar challenges for any medical professional who volunteers for in-flight psychiatric emergencies.¹

COPENHAGEN – The physiological and emotion-processing abnormalities that underpin conduct disorder in teen girls are essentially the same as in teen boys, although the clinical presentation of conduct disorder in the two groups is often different, according to preliminary results from the large pan-European FemNAT-CD study, the first large study of conduct disorder in girls.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The main finding of the study, I think, is that we found no major differences in physiology between male and female conduct disorder. There are some differences, mainly related to having less LPE [low prosocial emotions] and more internalizing comorbidity in the girls, but when you look at conduct disorder overall, then you see that the physiological systems are about the same,” Lucres Nauta-Jansen, PhD, commented in presenting some of the early FemNAT-CD findings at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

LPE is a term included in the DSM-5 as a descriptor of individuals with conduct disorder (CD) who exhibit callous-unemotional traits. The LPE specifier was present in 37% of the 296 adolescent girls with CD in FemNAT-CD, significantly less than the 50% prevalence in the 187 adolescent boys with CD in the study. This analysis from the ongoing study, which is being conducted at 13 universities across Europe, also included 363 age-matched girls and 164 age-matched boys without CD as controls. Average participant age was 14 years.

FemNAT-CD is a multidisciplinary study aimed at exploring sex differences between boys and girls with and without CD in terms of brain structure and function, genetics, hormone levels, emotion recognition and regulation, and autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity. At Amsterdam University Medical Center, where Dr. Nauta-Jansen serves as deputy head of the department of child and adolescent psychiatry, she and her coinvestigators have focused on the autonomic activity and emotion-processing portions of FemNAT-CD.

CD is less common in girls than boys, although the prevalence in girls is growing. The importance of FemNAT-CD lies in the fact that virtually all prior studies of CD were conducted in boys. As a result, there is no specific treatment intervention available for girls with CD.

“We actually don’t know anything about girls. There are a few previous studies, but they have small samples and contradictory results. We need to know more about the mechanisms that are involved in this kind of behavior to develop more specific treatments in the future,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen said.

In FemNAT-CD, the girls with CD not only had a lower rate of LPE symptoms than the boys with CD, they also had a significantly higher prevalence of anxiety and other internalizing comorbidities, by a margin of 32% to 22%. These differences are manifested in different expressions of antisocial behavior as described in the model of the neurobiology of CD developed by R. James Blair, PhD, director of the Center for Neurobehavioral Research at the Boys Town National Research Hospital in Omaha, Neb (Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Nov;14[11]:786-99).

According to the model’s low psychophysiological arousal theory, boys with the callous-unemotional form of CD have low basal ANS activity and low amygdala responsiveness to stressful events, making them more prone to sensation-seeking behavior.

“This might make them want to do ice climbing or sky diving. Or, in a more negative environment or in a bad neighborhood, it can also lead to aggressive and delinquent behavior,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen said.

The other core impairment that is common in a subset of CD patients as described in the Blair model – again, based upon studies in boys – involves a tendency to engage in threat-based reactive aggression with an increased ANS response to stress and a related difficulty in processing emotions.

Dr. Nauta-Jansen and coinvestigators conducted a series of tests of FemNAT-CD participants which demonstrated, for the first time, that both the callous-unemotional and threat-based reactive aggression forms of CD are present in girls as well as boys, albeit in different proportions.

The investigators found no differences in baseline ANS activity between girls and boys with CD and the controls as measured by heart rate, heart rate variability, and cardiac preejection period. Nor were there any differences in baseline ANS activity between boys and girls with CD and LPE. However, girls with CD and anxiety or other internalizing comorbidity displayed significantly lower heart rate variability than those without internalizing comorbidity or female controls.

Next, the investigators subjected study participants to an emotion provocation task in which they viewed two sadness-inducing film clips, including a heart-rending scene from the 1979 movie, “The Champ,” in which an ex-boxer played by Jon Voight returns to the ring to raise money to support his young son, played by Ricky Shroder. The champ wins by a knockout after taking such a beating that he subsequently dies in his dressing room as his son watches.

Both the girls and boys with CD had an increased heart rate response to “The Champ,” compared with the controls. And those with CD who did not have the LPE specifier showed the biggest ANS response of all. They were highly sensitive to negative emotions.

On a countdown task involving exposure to a loud, startling noise, the girls with CD did not learn to anticipate the pending startle at the autonomic level, whereas the boys with CD reacted no differently from controls.

On the Trier Social Stress Test, which entails public speaking and performing mental math calculations in front of a camera and a live audience of two, both the boys and girls with CD demonstrated a similarly lower heart rate response to the tasks than controls. Those with the LPE specifier had the lowest heart rate response of all.

“The conduct disorder subjects were impaired in their anticipatory response to fear and stress, but their responses to sadness were increased,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen observed.

“I think the main thing with these kids is they are mostly disturbed in their anticipation of bad situations. What you see in the countdown task is they don’t anticipate that there will be a bad event. And you see this also in clinical practice, that they sometimes get overwhelmed by things because they don’t learn from their previous experiences, including bad events. I think they don’t anticipate and therefore are more overwhelmed by bad events – especially the girls,” she said.

The take-home message from this phase of the FemNAT-CD study, she added, is straightforward: “When you’re treating conduct disorder in girls, I think it’s really important to know that it works about the same as in boys, although you have to be very aware that they show different symptomatology in terms of internalizing comorbidity.”

The FemNAT-CD investigators have developed a multifaceted therapeutic intervention for girls with CD that shows early promise in clinical settings. It includes aggression regulation training, medication in some cases, and emotion-processing training to teach patients how to deal with negative emotions without exploding into aggression.

FemNAT-CD is funded by the European Commission. Dr. Nauta-Jansen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

COPENHAGEN – The physiological and emotion-processing abnormalities that underpin conduct disorder in teen girls are essentially the same as in teen boys, although the clinical presentation of conduct disorder in the two groups is often different, according to preliminary results from the large pan-European FemNAT-CD study, the first large study of conduct disorder in girls.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The main finding of the study, I think, is that we found no major differences in physiology between male and female conduct disorder. There are some differences, mainly related to having less LPE [low prosocial emotions] and more internalizing comorbidity in the girls, but when you look at conduct disorder overall, then you see that the physiological systems are about the same,” Lucres Nauta-Jansen, PhD, commented in presenting some of the early FemNAT-CD findings at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

LPE is a term included in the DSM-5 as a descriptor of individuals with conduct disorder (CD) who exhibit callous-unemotional traits. The LPE specifier was present in 37% of the 296 adolescent girls with CD in FemNAT-CD, significantly less than the 50% prevalence in the 187 adolescent boys with CD in the study. This analysis from the ongoing study, which is being conducted at 13 universities across Europe, also included 363 age-matched girls and 164 age-matched boys without CD as controls. Average participant age was 14 years.

FemNAT-CD is a multidisciplinary study aimed at exploring sex differences between boys and girls with and without CD in terms of brain structure and function, genetics, hormone levels, emotion recognition and regulation, and autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity. At Amsterdam University Medical Center, where Dr. Nauta-Jansen serves as deputy head of the department of child and adolescent psychiatry, she and her coinvestigators have focused on the autonomic activity and emotion-processing portions of FemNAT-CD.

CD is less common in girls than boys, although the prevalence in girls is growing. The importance of FemNAT-CD lies in the fact that virtually all prior studies of CD were conducted in boys. As a result, there is no specific treatment intervention available for girls with CD.

“We actually don’t know anything about girls. There are a few previous studies, but they have small samples and contradictory results. We need to know more about the mechanisms that are involved in this kind of behavior to develop more specific treatments in the future,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen said.

In FemNAT-CD, the girls with CD not only had a lower rate of LPE symptoms than the boys with CD, they also had a significantly higher prevalence of anxiety and other internalizing comorbidities, by a margin of 32% to 22%. These differences are manifested in different expressions of antisocial behavior as described in the model of the neurobiology of CD developed by R. James Blair, PhD, director of the Center for Neurobehavioral Research at the Boys Town National Research Hospital in Omaha, Neb (Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Nov;14[11]:786-99).

According to the model’s low psychophysiological arousal theory, boys with the callous-unemotional form of CD have low basal ANS activity and low amygdala responsiveness to stressful events, making them more prone to sensation-seeking behavior.

“This might make them want to do ice climbing or sky diving. Or, in a more negative environment or in a bad neighborhood, it can also lead to aggressive and delinquent behavior,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen said.

The other core impairment that is common in a subset of CD patients as described in the Blair model – again, based upon studies in boys – involves a tendency to engage in threat-based reactive aggression with an increased ANS response to stress and a related difficulty in processing emotions.

Dr. Nauta-Jansen and coinvestigators conducted a series of tests of FemNAT-CD participants which demonstrated, for the first time, that both the callous-unemotional and threat-based reactive aggression forms of CD are present in girls as well as boys, albeit in different proportions.

The investigators found no differences in baseline ANS activity between girls and boys with CD and the controls as measured by heart rate, heart rate variability, and cardiac preejection period. Nor were there any differences in baseline ANS activity between boys and girls with CD and LPE. However, girls with CD and anxiety or other internalizing comorbidity displayed significantly lower heart rate variability than those without internalizing comorbidity or female controls.

Next, the investigators subjected study participants to an emotion provocation task in which they viewed two sadness-inducing film clips, including a heart-rending scene from the 1979 movie, “The Champ,” in which an ex-boxer played by Jon Voight returns to the ring to raise money to support his young son, played by Ricky Shroder. The champ wins by a knockout after taking such a beating that he subsequently dies in his dressing room as his son watches.

Both the girls and boys with CD had an increased heart rate response to “The Champ,” compared with the controls. And those with CD who did not have the LPE specifier showed the biggest ANS response of all. They were highly sensitive to negative emotions.

On a countdown task involving exposure to a loud, startling noise, the girls with CD did not learn to anticipate the pending startle at the autonomic level, whereas the boys with CD reacted no differently from controls.

On the Trier Social Stress Test, which entails public speaking and performing mental math calculations in front of a camera and a live audience of two, both the boys and girls with CD demonstrated a similarly lower heart rate response to the tasks than controls. Those with the LPE specifier had the lowest heart rate response of all.

“The conduct disorder subjects were impaired in their anticipatory response to fear and stress, but their responses to sadness were increased,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen observed.

“I think the main thing with these kids is they are mostly disturbed in their anticipation of bad situations. What you see in the countdown task is they don’t anticipate that there will be a bad event. And you see this also in clinical practice, that they sometimes get overwhelmed by things because they don’t learn from their previous experiences, including bad events. I think they don’t anticipate and therefore are more overwhelmed by bad events – especially the girls,” she said.

The take-home message from this phase of the FemNAT-CD study, she added, is straightforward: “When you’re treating conduct disorder in girls, I think it’s really important to know that it works about the same as in boys, although you have to be very aware that they show different symptomatology in terms of internalizing comorbidity.”

The FemNAT-CD investigators have developed a multifaceted therapeutic intervention for girls with CD that shows early promise in clinical settings. It includes aggression regulation training, medication in some cases, and emotion-processing training to teach patients how to deal with negative emotions without exploding into aggression.

FemNAT-CD is funded by the European Commission. Dr. Nauta-Jansen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

COPENHAGEN – The physiological and emotion-processing abnormalities that underpin conduct disorder in teen girls are essentially the same as in teen boys, although the clinical presentation of conduct disorder in the two groups is often different, according to preliminary results from the large pan-European FemNAT-CD study, the first large study of conduct disorder in girls.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

“The main finding of the study, I think, is that we found no major differences in physiology between male and female conduct disorder. There are some differences, mainly related to having less LPE [low prosocial emotions] and more internalizing comorbidity in the girls, but when you look at conduct disorder overall, then you see that the physiological systems are about the same,” Lucres Nauta-Jansen, PhD, commented in presenting some of the early FemNAT-CD findings at the annual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

LPE is a term included in the DSM-5 as a descriptor of individuals with conduct disorder (CD) who exhibit callous-unemotional traits. The LPE specifier was present in 37% of the 296 adolescent girls with CD in FemNAT-CD, significantly less than the 50% prevalence in the 187 adolescent boys with CD in the study. This analysis from the ongoing study, which is being conducted at 13 universities across Europe, also included 363 age-matched girls and 164 age-matched boys without CD as controls. Average participant age was 14 years.

FemNAT-CD is a multidisciplinary study aimed at exploring sex differences between boys and girls with and without CD in terms of brain structure and function, genetics, hormone levels, emotion recognition and regulation, and autonomic nervous system (ANS) activity. At Amsterdam University Medical Center, where Dr. Nauta-Jansen serves as deputy head of the department of child and adolescent psychiatry, she and her coinvestigators have focused on the autonomic activity and emotion-processing portions of FemNAT-CD.

CD is less common in girls than boys, although the prevalence in girls is growing. The importance of FemNAT-CD lies in the fact that virtually all prior studies of CD were conducted in boys. As a result, there is no specific treatment intervention available for girls with CD.

“We actually don’t know anything about girls. There are a few previous studies, but they have small samples and contradictory results. We need to know more about the mechanisms that are involved in this kind of behavior to develop more specific treatments in the future,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen said.

In FemNAT-CD, the girls with CD not only had a lower rate of LPE symptoms than the boys with CD, they also had a significantly higher prevalence of anxiety and other internalizing comorbidities, by a margin of 32% to 22%. These differences are manifested in different expressions of antisocial behavior as described in the model of the neurobiology of CD developed by R. James Blair, PhD, director of the Center for Neurobehavioral Research at the Boys Town National Research Hospital in Omaha, Neb (Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013 Nov;14[11]:786-99).

According to the model’s low psychophysiological arousal theory, boys with the callous-unemotional form of CD have low basal ANS activity and low amygdala responsiveness to stressful events, making them more prone to sensation-seeking behavior.

“This might make them want to do ice climbing or sky diving. Or, in a more negative environment or in a bad neighborhood, it can also lead to aggressive and delinquent behavior,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen said.

The other core impairment that is common in a subset of CD patients as described in the Blair model – again, based upon studies in boys – involves a tendency to engage in threat-based reactive aggression with an increased ANS response to stress and a related difficulty in processing emotions.

Dr. Nauta-Jansen and coinvestigators conducted a series of tests of FemNAT-CD participants which demonstrated, for the first time, that both the callous-unemotional and threat-based reactive aggression forms of CD are present in girls as well as boys, albeit in different proportions.

The investigators found no differences in baseline ANS activity between girls and boys with CD and the controls as measured by heart rate, heart rate variability, and cardiac preejection period. Nor were there any differences in baseline ANS activity between boys and girls with CD and LPE. However, girls with CD and anxiety or other internalizing comorbidity displayed significantly lower heart rate variability than those without internalizing comorbidity or female controls.

Next, the investigators subjected study participants to an emotion provocation task in which they viewed two sadness-inducing film clips, including a heart-rending scene from the 1979 movie, “The Champ,” in which an ex-boxer played by Jon Voight returns to the ring to raise money to support his young son, played by Ricky Shroder. The champ wins by a knockout after taking such a beating that he subsequently dies in his dressing room as his son watches.

Both the girls and boys with CD had an increased heart rate response to “The Champ,” compared with the controls. And those with CD who did not have the LPE specifier showed the biggest ANS response of all. They were highly sensitive to negative emotions.

On a countdown task involving exposure to a loud, startling noise, the girls with CD did not learn to anticipate the pending startle at the autonomic level, whereas the boys with CD reacted no differently from controls.

On the Trier Social Stress Test, which entails public speaking and performing mental math calculations in front of a camera and a live audience of two, both the boys and girls with CD demonstrated a similarly lower heart rate response to the tasks than controls. Those with the LPE specifier had the lowest heart rate response of all.

“The conduct disorder subjects were impaired in their anticipatory response to fear and stress, but their responses to sadness were increased,” Dr. Nauta-Jansen observed.

“I think the main thing with these kids is they are mostly disturbed in their anticipation of bad situations. What you see in the countdown task is they don’t anticipate that there will be a bad event. And you see this also in clinical practice, that they sometimes get overwhelmed by things because they don’t learn from their previous experiences, including bad events. I think they don’t anticipate and therefore are more overwhelmed by bad events – especially the girls,” she said.

The take-home message from this phase of the FemNAT-CD study, she added, is straightforward: “When you’re treating conduct disorder in girls, I think it’s really important to know that it works about the same as in boys, although you have to be very aware that they show different symptomatology in terms of internalizing comorbidity.”

The FemNAT-CD investigators have developed a multifaceted therapeutic intervention for girls with CD that shows early promise in clinical settings. It includes aggression regulation training, medication in some cases, and emotion-processing training to teach patients how to deal with negative emotions without exploding into aggression.

FemNAT-CD is funded by the European Commission. Dr. Nauta-Jansen reported having no financial conflicts regarding the study.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SAN DIEGO – Not long before his presentation at Psych Congress 2019, psychiatrist Rakesh Jain, MD, MPH, chatted with a fellow attendee, a nurse practitioner from Tyler, Tex. As Dr. Jain recalled later, his fellow Texan told him that “it’s not unusual to see patients on three benzodiazepines.”

The nurse practitioner “talks to them about how they need to do things differently, and they forget,” Dr. Jain said. “He’s very worried about them.”

Dr. Jain is familiar with the feeling. Like many mental health professionals, he worries about the role of benzodiazepines, which seem to be both widely used and misused. Figuring out their proper place in psychiatry “may require us to raise our game,” said Dr. Jain, of Texas Tech University in Midland.

What to do? Dr. Jain and a colleague offered the same answer – tread carefully, but do not eliminate them as an option – in two separate sessions at the annual Psych Congress.

As Dr. Jain noted, benzodiazepines are popular, and for good reason. “There are many patients, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who are using benzodiazepines chronically, and they’re doing it right. There’s not a CVS in America where benzodiazepines aren’t well stocked. They’re very inexpensive, and the most costly benzodiazepine is still cheaper than Motrin.”

On the other hand, he said, the medications are linked to addiction and physical dependence. “Thirty percent of those who die of opioid overdoses may not have died if they didn’t have benzodiazepines [in their systems].”

Be very cautious about prescribing as needed

“It’s rarely indicated to prescribe benzodiazepine [as needed] when you’re treating people with anxiety,” he said. “The main reason is patients don’t know when they need it. They take their pills either when they’re so anxious that they’ve already been freaking out for a long time, or they take it when they’re first starting to feel at least a bit anxious. That leads to taking it to prevent being anxious.”

Allow an as-needed approach in certain situations

It can be appropriate to prescribe benzodiazepines for specific short-term anxiety-provoking situations, such as speaking in public, Dr. Stein said.

However, he said, advise patients to try the medication beforehand so they understand its effects. “I’ve had one occasion where I thought we had a dose worked out well. Somebody had to do a work presentation, and he took the medicine and got up in front of the group. He wasn’t anxious at all. But he couldn’t remember a single thing.”
 

Don’t use them as patients start SSRIs

Patients can get anxious as they start SSRIs, especially for panic disorders, Dr. Stein said. So it might seem reasonable, as some psychiatrists believe, to add benzodiazepines on a short-term basis.

But Dr. Stein said he is not a fan of this approach. As he noted, benzodiazepines are hard to stop. He prefers to help patients understand possible side effects of SSRIs instead, and he emphasized the importance of being available to help patients get through them.

Dr. Jain and Dr. Stein each reported multiple relationships with industry.

SAN DIEGO – Not long before his presentation at Psych Congress 2019, psychiatrist Rakesh Jain, MD, MPH, chatted with a fellow attendee, a nurse practitioner from Tyler, Tex. As Dr. Jain recalled later, his fellow Texan told him that “it’s not unusual to see patients on three benzodiazepines.”

The nurse practitioner “talks to them about how they need to do things differently, and they forget,” Dr. Jain said. “He’s very worried about them.”

Dr. Jain is familiar with the feeling. Like many mental health professionals, he worries about the role of benzodiazepines, which seem to be both widely used and misused. Figuring out their proper place in psychiatry “may require us to raise our game,” said Dr. Jain, of Texas Tech University in Midland.

What to do? Dr. Jain and a colleague offered the same answer – tread carefully, but do not eliminate them as an option – in two separate sessions at the annual Psych Congress.

As Dr. Jain noted, benzodiazepines are popular, and for good reason. “There are many patients, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who are using benzodiazepines chronically, and they’re doing it right. There’s not a CVS in America where benzodiazepines aren’t well stocked. They’re very inexpensive, and the most costly benzodiazepine is still cheaper than Motrin.”

On the other hand, he said, the medications are linked to addiction and physical dependence. “Thirty percent of those who die of opioid overdoses may not have died if they didn’t have benzodiazepines [in their systems].”

Be very cautious about prescribing as needed

“It’s rarely indicated to prescribe benzodiazepine [as needed] when you’re treating people with anxiety,” he said. “The main reason is patients don’t know when they need it. They take their pills either when they’re so anxious that they’ve already been freaking out for a long time, or they take it when they’re first starting to feel at least a bit anxious. That leads to taking it to prevent being anxious.”

Allow an as-needed approach in certain situations

It can be appropriate to prescribe benzodiazepines for specific short-term anxiety-provoking situations, such as speaking in public, Dr. Stein said.

However, he said, advise patients to try the medication beforehand so they understand its effects. “I’ve had one occasion where I thought we had a dose worked out well. Somebody had to do a work presentation, and he took the medicine and got up in front of the group. He wasn’t anxious at all. But he couldn’t remember a single thing.”
 

Don’t use them as patients start SSRIs

Patients can get anxious as they start SSRIs, especially for panic disorders, Dr. Stein said. So it might seem reasonable, as some psychiatrists believe, to add benzodiazepines on a short-term basis.

But Dr. Stein said he is not a fan of this approach. As he noted, benzodiazepines are hard to stop. He prefers to help patients understand possible side effects of SSRIs instead, and he emphasized the importance of being available to help patients get through them.

Dr. Jain and Dr. Stein each reported multiple relationships with industry.

SAN DIEGO – Not long before his presentation at Psych Congress 2019, psychiatrist Rakesh Jain, MD, MPH, chatted with a fellow attendee, a nurse practitioner from Tyler, Tex. As Dr. Jain recalled later, his fellow Texan told him that “it’s not unusual to see patients on three benzodiazepines.”

The nurse practitioner “talks to them about how they need to do things differently, and they forget,” Dr. Jain said. “He’s very worried about them.”

Dr. Jain is familiar with the feeling. Like many mental health professionals, he worries about the role of benzodiazepines, which seem to be both widely used and misused. Figuring out their proper place in psychiatry “may require us to raise our game,” said Dr. Jain, of Texas Tech University in Midland.

What to do? Dr. Jain and a colleague offered the same answer – tread carefully, but do not eliminate them as an option – in two separate sessions at the annual Psych Congress.

As Dr. Jain noted, benzodiazepines are popular, and for good reason. “There are many patients, perhaps hundreds of thousands, who are using benzodiazepines chronically, and they’re doing it right. There’s not a CVS in America where benzodiazepines aren’t well stocked. They’re very inexpensive, and the most costly benzodiazepine is still cheaper than Motrin.”

On the other hand, he said, the medications are linked to addiction and physical dependence. “Thirty percent of those who die of opioid overdoses may not have died if they didn’t have benzodiazepines [in their systems].”

Be very cautious about prescribing as needed

“It’s rarely indicated to prescribe benzodiazepine [as needed] when you’re treating people with anxiety,” he said. “The main reason is patients don’t know when they need it. They take their pills either when they’re so anxious that they’ve already been freaking out for a long time, or they take it when they’re first starting to feel at least a bit anxious. That leads to taking it to prevent being anxious.”

Allow an as-needed approach in certain situations

It can be appropriate to prescribe benzodiazepines for specific short-term anxiety-provoking situations, such as speaking in public, Dr. Stein said.

However, he said, advise patients to try the medication beforehand so they understand its effects. “I’ve had one occasion where I thought we had a dose worked out well. Somebody had to do a work presentation, and he took the medicine and got up in front of the group. He wasn’t anxious at all. But he couldn’t remember a single thing.”
 

Don’t use them as patients start SSRIs

Patients can get anxious as they start SSRIs, especially for panic disorders, Dr. Stein said. So it might seem reasonable, as some psychiatrists believe, to add benzodiazepines on a short-term basis.

But Dr. Stein said he is not a fan of this approach. As he noted, benzodiazepines are hard to stop. He prefers to help patients understand possible side effects of SSRIs instead, and he emphasized the importance of being available to help patients get through them.

Dr. Jain and Dr. Stein each reported multiple relationships with industry.

Fluoxetine appeared to lower scores for obsessive-compulsive behaviors among a group of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), but the positive finding fell apart during multiple secondary analyses, Dinah S. Reddihough, MD, and colleagues have reported.

At 16 weeks, children and adolescents randomized to receive the SSRI had about a 2-point improvement on the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, modified for pervasive developmental disorder (CYBOCS-PDD), compared with those taking placebo. But the finding lost significance in a multivariate analysis that accounted for a between-group difference in baseline scores – an uncontrollable variable that occurred during randomization, wrote Dr. Reddihough, of the Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria, Australia, and coauthors.

“Moreover, repeating the analyses with multiple imputation to handle the missing data, arguably a preferable analysis, also failed to show evidence of benefit of fluoxetine compared with placebo irrespective of adjustment for the baseline imbalance,” the team noted. The study was published in JAMA.

Despite the null findings of the additional adjusted analyses, the authors held out hope for fluoxetine.

“Although cautious interpretation of the results from the primary analysis is warranted, all analyses of the primary outcome yielded 95% confidence intervals that extended well above the minimum clinically important difference of 2 points, indicating that fluoxetine may reduce the frequency and severity of obsessive-compulsive behaviors in children and adolescents with ASDs. Given the large amount of missing data, the study may have been underpowered to detect the minimum clinically important difference of 2 points.”

The study comprised 146 children (mean age, 11 years) recruited through three large practices in Australia. Children were randomized to fluoxetine or placebo for 16 weeks. Fluoxetine was weight-dosed and then titrated every week for the first month to a maximum of 20 mg/day.

The primary outcome was the difference between groups in the total score on the CYBOCS-PDD at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included changes on the Repetitive Behavior Scale–Revised, the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale Aberrant Behavior Checklist–Community Version, the Clinical Global Impression Scale–Global Improvement and Efficacy Index, and a Disruptiveness Assessment.

Of the cohort, 85% were male, and 30% had an intellectual disability. The placebo group had higher scores on the Repetitive Behavior Scale–Revised and the Aberrant Behavior Checklist lethargy scale than did the fluoxetine groups.

There was a very high rate of nonadherence to study protocol, with 41% of those in the active group and 30% in the placebo group not completing the treatment regimen. The most often cited reasons for treatment discontinuation included parent decision to drop out (20 fluoxetine, 12 placebo), adverse events (5 fluoxetine, 4 placebo), and clinician decision (2 fluoxetine, 2 placebo).

The primary analysis found that scores on the CYBOCS-PDD were significantly lower in the fluoxetine group at 16 weeks; the fluoxetine group had decreased its score from 12.80 to 9.02, while the placebo group went from 13.13 to 10.89. This mean 2-point difference was statistically significant and, the authors wrote, met the minimum threshold for a clinically significant difference.

But the mean between-group difference decreased to a nonsignificant 1.17 points in the sensitivity analysis that controlled for sex, verbal ability, baseline CYBOCS-PDD, and imbalances found at baseline in some of the measures.

“Moreover, repeating the analyses with multiple imputation to handle the missing data, arguably a preferable analysis, also failed to show evidence of benefit of fluoxetine compared with placebo irrespective of adjustment for the baseline imbalance,” the team said.

There were no significant differences on any of the secondary measures.

Adverse events were similar in the active and placebo groups (45% and 42%, respectively). These included mood disturbances particularly irritability (9 fluoxetine, 12 placebo), gastrointestinal problems such as nausea and diarrhea (10 fluoxetine, 7 placebo), and sleep disorders (13 fluoxetine, 16 placebo). Two patients in the placebo group and none in the active group experienced suicidality.

Dr. Reddihough and coauthors cited the study’s high dropout rate as one of its limitations.

The study was supported by a federal grant from the Australian government. Dr. Reddihough had no financial disclosures.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Reddihough DS et al. JAMA. 2019;322(16):1561-9.

Fluoxetine appeared to lower scores for obsessive-compulsive behaviors among a group of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), but the positive finding fell apart during multiple secondary analyses, Dinah S. Reddihough, MD, and colleagues have reported.

At 16 weeks, children and adolescents randomized to receive the SSRI had about a 2-point improvement on the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, modified for pervasive developmental disorder (CYBOCS-PDD), compared with those taking placebo. But the finding lost significance in a multivariate analysis that accounted for a between-group difference in baseline scores – an uncontrollable variable that occurred during randomization, wrote Dr. Reddihough, of the Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria, Australia, and coauthors.

“Moreover, repeating the analyses with multiple imputation to handle the missing data, arguably a preferable analysis, also failed to show evidence of benefit of fluoxetine compared with placebo irrespective of adjustment for the baseline imbalance,” the team noted. The study was published in JAMA.

Despite the null findings of the additional adjusted analyses, the authors held out hope for fluoxetine.

“Although cautious interpretation of the results from the primary analysis is warranted, all analyses of the primary outcome yielded 95% confidence intervals that extended well above the minimum clinically important difference of 2 points, indicating that fluoxetine may reduce the frequency and severity of obsessive-compulsive behaviors in children and adolescents with ASDs. Given the large amount of missing data, the study may have been underpowered to detect the minimum clinically important difference of 2 points.”

The study comprised 146 children (mean age, 11 years) recruited through three large practices in Australia. Children were randomized to fluoxetine or placebo for 16 weeks. Fluoxetine was weight-dosed and then titrated every week for the first month to a maximum of 20 mg/day.

The primary outcome was the difference between groups in the total score on the CYBOCS-PDD at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included changes on the Repetitive Behavior Scale–Revised, the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale Aberrant Behavior Checklist–Community Version, the Clinical Global Impression Scale–Global Improvement and Efficacy Index, and a Disruptiveness Assessment.

Of the cohort, 85% were male, and 30% had an intellectual disability. The placebo group had higher scores on the Repetitive Behavior Scale–Revised and the Aberrant Behavior Checklist lethargy scale than did the fluoxetine groups.

There was a very high rate of nonadherence to study protocol, with 41% of those in the active group and 30% in the placebo group not completing the treatment regimen. The most often cited reasons for treatment discontinuation included parent decision to drop out (20 fluoxetine, 12 placebo), adverse events (5 fluoxetine, 4 placebo), and clinician decision (2 fluoxetine, 2 placebo).

The primary analysis found that scores on the CYBOCS-PDD were significantly lower in the fluoxetine group at 16 weeks; the fluoxetine group had decreased its score from 12.80 to 9.02, while the placebo group went from 13.13 to 10.89. This mean 2-point difference was statistically significant and, the authors wrote, met the minimum threshold for a clinically significant difference.

But the mean between-group difference decreased to a nonsignificant 1.17 points in the sensitivity analysis that controlled for sex, verbal ability, baseline CYBOCS-PDD, and imbalances found at baseline in some of the measures.

“Moreover, repeating the analyses with multiple imputation to handle the missing data, arguably a preferable analysis, also failed to show evidence of benefit of fluoxetine compared with placebo irrespective of adjustment for the baseline imbalance,” the team said.

There were no significant differences on any of the secondary measures.

Adverse events were similar in the active and placebo groups (45% and 42%, respectively). These included mood disturbances particularly irritability (9 fluoxetine, 12 placebo), gastrointestinal problems such as nausea and diarrhea (10 fluoxetine, 7 placebo), and sleep disorders (13 fluoxetine, 16 placebo). Two patients in the placebo group and none in the active group experienced suicidality.

Dr. Reddihough and coauthors cited the study’s high dropout rate as one of its limitations.

The study was supported by a federal grant from the Australian government. Dr. Reddihough had no financial disclosures.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Reddihough DS et al. JAMA. 2019;322(16):1561-9.

Fluoxetine appeared to lower scores for obsessive-compulsive behaviors among a group of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), but the positive finding fell apart during multiple secondary analyses, Dinah S. Reddihough, MD, and colleagues have reported.

At 16 weeks, children and adolescents randomized to receive the SSRI had about a 2-point improvement on the Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale, modified for pervasive developmental disorder (CYBOCS-PDD), compared with those taking placebo. But the finding lost significance in a multivariate analysis that accounted for a between-group difference in baseline scores – an uncontrollable variable that occurred during randomization, wrote Dr. Reddihough, of the Royal Children’s Hospital in Victoria, Australia, and coauthors.

“Moreover, repeating the analyses with multiple imputation to handle the missing data, arguably a preferable analysis, also failed to show evidence of benefit of fluoxetine compared with placebo irrespective of adjustment for the baseline imbalance,” the team noted. The study was published in JAMA.

Despite the null findings of the additional adjusted analyses, the authors held out hope for fluoxetine.

“Although cautious interpretation of the results from the primary analysis is warranted, all analyses of the primary outcome yielded 95% confidence intervals that extended well above the minimum clinically important difference of 2 points, indicating that fluoxetine may reduce the frequency and severity of obsessive-compulsive behaviors in children and adolescents with ASDs. Given the large amount of missing data, the study may have been underpowered to detect the minimum clinically important difference of 2 points.”

The study comprised 146 children (mean age, 11 years) recruited through three large practices in Australia. Children were randomized to fluoxetine or placebo for 16 weeks. Fluoxetine was weight-dosed and then titrated every week for the first month to a maximum of 20 mg/day.

The primary outcome was the difference between groups in the total score on the CYBOCS-PDD at 16 weeks. Secondary endpoints included changes on the Repetitive Behavior Scale–Revised, the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale Aberrant Behavior Checklist–Community Version, the Clinical Global Impression Scale–Global Improvement and Efficacy Index, and a Disruptiveness Assessment.

Of the cohort, 85% were male, and 30% had an intellectual disability. The placebo group had higher scores on the Repetitive Behavior Scale–Revised and the Aberrant Behavior Checklist lethargy scale than did the fluoxetine groups.

There was a very high rate of nonadherence to study protocol, with 41% of those in the active group and 30% in the placebo group not completing the treatment regimen. The most often cited reasons for treatment discontinuation included parent decision to drop out (20 fluoxetine, 12 placebo), adverse events (5 fluoxetine, 4 placebo), and clinician decision (2 fluoxetine, 2 placebo).

The primary analysis found that scores on the CYBOCS-PDD were significantly lower in the fluoxetine group at 16 weeks; the fluoxetine group had decreased its score from 12.80 to 9.02, while the placebo group went from 13.13 to 10.89. This mean 2-point difference was statistically significant and, the authors wrote, met the minimum threshold for a clinically significant difference.

But the mean between-group difference decreased to a nonsignificant 1.17 points in the sensitivity analysis that controlled for sex, verbal ability, baseline CYBOCS-PDD, and imbalances found at baseline in some of the measures.

“Moreover, repeating the analyses with multiple imputation to handle the missing data, arguably a preferable analysis, also failed to show evidence of benefit of fluoxetine compared with placebo irrespective of adjustment for the baseline imbalance,” the team said.

There were no significant differences on any of the secondary measures.

Adverse events were similar in the active and placebo groups (45% and 42%, respectively). These included mood disturbances particularly irritability (9 fluoxetine, 12 placebo), gastrointestinal problems such as nausea and diarrhea (10 fluoxetine, 7 placebo), and sleep disorders (13 fluoxetine, 16 placebo). Two patients in the placebo group and none in the active group experienced suicidality.

Dr. Reddihough and coauthors cited the study’s high dropout rate as one of its limitations.

The study was supported by a federal grant from the Australian government. Dr. Reddihough had no financial disclosures.

msullivan@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Reddihough DS et al. JAMA. 2019;322(16):1561-9.