Commentary

The psychiatric clinic of the future

Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19(4):31-32,37-39A

Advances in technology may soon bring substantial changes to our clinical practice.

References

1. Pirmohamed M. Pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;52(4):345-347.
2. Benitez J, Cool CL, Scotti DJ. Use of combinatorial pharmacogenomic guidance in treating psychiatric disorders. Per Med. 2018;15(6):481-494.
3. Cannon TD. Candidate gene studies in the GWAS era: the MET proto-oncogene, neurocognition, and schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167(4):4,369-372.
4. Greenwood J, Chamberlain C, Parker G. Evaluation of a rural telepsychiatry service. Australas Psychiatry. 2004;12(3):268-272.
5. Hubley S, Lynch SB, Schneck C, et al. Review of key telepsychiatry outcomes. World J Psychiatry. 2016;6(2):269-282.
6. Cheng KM, Siu BW, Yeung CC, et al. Telepsychiatry for stable Chinese psychiatric out-patients in custody in Hong Kong: a case-control pilot study. Hong Kong Med J. 2018;24(4):378-383.
7. Frankish K, Ryan C, Harris A. Psychiatry and online social media: potential, pitfalls and ethical guidelines for psychiatrists and trainees. Australasian Psychiatry. 2012;20(3):181-187.
8. de la Torre Díez I, Alonso SG, Hamrioui S, et al. IoT-based services and applications for mental health in the literature. J Med Syst. 2019;43(1):4-9.
9. Topol E. Deep Medicine. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2019:168.
10. Adams RA, Huys QJM, Roiser JP. Computational Psychiatry: towards a mathematically informed understanding of mental illness. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2016;87(1):53-63.
11. Insel TR. Bending the curve for mental health: technology for a public health approach. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(suppl 3):S168-S170.
12. Just MA, Pan L, Cherkassky VL, et al. Machine learning of neural representations of suicide and emotion concepts identifies suicidal youth. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1:911-919.
13. Pestian J, Nasrallah H, Matykiewicz P, et al. Suicide note classification using natural language processing: a content analysis. Biomed Inform Insights. 2010;2010(3):19-28.
14. Walsh CG, Ribeiro JD, Franklin JC. Predicting risk of suicide attempts over time through machine learning. Clinical Psychological Science. 2017;5(3):457-469.
15. Pestian JP, Sorter M, Connolly B, et al; STM Research Group. A machine learning approach to identifying the thought markers of suicidal subjects: a prospective multicenter trial. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2017;47(1):112-121.
16. Corcoran CM, Carrillo F, Fernández-Slezak D, et al. Prediction of psychosis across protocols and risk cohorts using automated language analysis. World Psychiatry. 2018;17(1):67-75.
17. Bedi G, Carrillo F, Cecchi GA, et al. Automated analysis of free speech predicts psychosis onset in high-risk youths. NPJ Schizophr. 2015;1:15030. doi: 10.1038/npjschz.2015.30.
18. Kalanderian H, Nasrallah HA. Artificial intelligence in psychiatry. Current Psychiatry. 2019;18(8):33-38.
19. Drysdale AT, Grosenick L, Downar J, et al. Resting-state connectivity biomarkers define neurophysiological subtypes of depression. Nat Med. 2017;23(1):28-38.
20. Chekroud AM, Zotti RJ, Shehzad Z, et al. Cross-trial prediction of treatment outcome in depression: a machine learning approach. Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(3):243-250.
21. Grisanzio KA, Goldstein-Piekarski AN, Wang MY, et al. Transdiagnostic symptom clusters and associations with brain, behavior, and daily function in mood, anxiety, and trauma disorders. JAMA Psychiatry. 2018;75(2):201-209.
22. Lucas G, Gratch J, King A, et al. It’s only a computer: virtual humans increase willingness to disclose. Computers in Human Behavior. 2014;37:94-100.
23. Nasir M, Baucom BR, Georgiou P, et al. Predicting couple therapy outcomes based on speech acoustic features. PLoS One. 2017;12(9):e0185123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185123.
24. Huguet A, Rao S, McGrath PJ, et al. A systematic review of cognitive behavioral therapy and behavioral activation apps for depression. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0154248. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154248.
25. Scholten MR, Kelders SM, Van Gemert-Pijnen JE. Self-guided web-based interventions: scoping review on user needs and the potential of embodied conversational agents to address them. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(11):e383.
26. Topol E. Deep Medicine. New York, NY: Basic Books; 2019:283-310.
27. Abramson EL, McGinnis S, Edwards A, et al. Electronic health record adoption and health information exchange among hospitals in New York State. J Eval Clin Pract. 2012;18(6):1156-1162.
28. Meeks DW, Smith MW, Taylor L, et al. An analysis of electronic health record-related patient safety concerns. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(6):1053-1059.
29. Kho AN, Rasmussen LV, Connolly JJ, et al. Practical challenges in integrating genomic data into the electronic health record. Genet Med. 2013;15(10):772-778.
30. Ornstein SM, Oates RB, Fox GN. The computer-based medical record: current status. J Fam Pract. 1992;35(5):556-565.
31. Corea F. Machine ethics and artificial moral agents. In: Applied artificial intelligence: where AI can be used in business. Basel, Switzerland: Springer; 2019:33-41.
32. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2012:44.

Despite the tremendous advances in psychiatry in recent years, the current clinical practice of psychiatry continues to rely on data from intermittent assessments along with subjective and unquantifiable accounts from patients and caregivers. Furthermore, there continues to be significant diagnostic variations among practitioners. Fortunately, technology to address these issues appears to be on the horizon.

How might the psychiatric clinic of the future look? What changes could we envision? These 4 critical factors may soon bring about dynamic changes in the way we practice psychiatry:

precision psychiatry
digital psychiatry
technology-enhanced psychotherapy
electronic health record (EHR) reforms.

In this article, we review how advances in each of these areas might lead to improved care for our patients.

Precision psychiatry

Precision psychiatry takes into account each patient’s variability in genes, environment, and lifestyle to determine individualized treatment and prevention strategies. It relies on pharmacogenomic testing as the primary tool. Pharmacogenomics is the study of variability in drug response due to heredity.

Emerging data on the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomic testing are encouraging, but its routine use is not well supported by current evidence.² One limit to using pharmacogenomic testing is that many genes simultaneously exert an effect on the structure and function of neurons and associated pathophysiology. According to the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics, no single genetic variant is sufficient to cause psychiatric disorders such as depression, bipolar disorder, substance dependence, or schizophrenia. This limits the possibility of using genetic tests to establish a diagnosis.³

In the future, better algorithms could promote more accurate pharmacogenomics profiles for individual patients, which could influence treatment.

Precision psychiatry could lead to:

identification of novel targets for new medications
pharmacogenetic profiling of the patient to predict disease susceptibility and medication response
personalized therapy: the right drug at the right dose for the right patient.
improved efficacy and fewer adverse medication reactions.

Continue to: Digital psychiatry

The psychiatric clinic of the future

References

Precision psychiatry

Pages

Recommended Reading