Bipolar Disorder

Most people experiencing homelessness have mental health disorders, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In an examination of studies that included nearly 50,000 participants, the current prevalence of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness was 67% and the lifetime prevalence was 77%.

“The relationship is likely bidirectional, where experiencing homelessness may exacerbate mental health symptoms or where having a mental health disorder may increase an individual’s risk for experiencing homelessness,” lead author Rebecca Barry, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told this news organization. 

“There are also likely stressors that increase both risk for homelessness and risk for developing mental health disorders. This study examines prevalence but does not examine causal relationships,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A Growing Problem 

To determine the current and lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders among the homeless population, the researchers analyzed 85 studies that examined this question in participants aged ≥ 18 years. The review included 48,414 participants, including 11,154 (23%) women and 37,260 (77%) men.

The lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders was significantly higher in men experiencing homelessness (86%) than in women (69%). The most common mental health disorder was substance use disorder (44%), followed by antisocial personality disorder (26%), major depression (19%), bipolar disorder (8%), and schizophrenia (7%).

The prevalence of current and lifetime mental health disorders among the homeless population was higher than that that observed in the general population (13%-15% and 12%-47%, respectively).

The results resembled those of a previous review that estimated that 76% of people experiencing homelessness living in high-income countries have mental health disorders.

“Even though our results are not surprising, they still are drawing attention to this issue because it is a big problem in Canada, the United States, Europe, and other places,” senior author Dallas Seitz, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The problem is concerning, and it’s not getting better. Addiction and mental health problems are becoming more common among people who are homeless.” 

The bottom line is that people need affordable housing and mental health support, said Dr. Seitz. “It’s a housing problem and a health problem, and we need adequate resources to find better ways for those two systems to collaborate. There are public safety concerns, and we have to try and bring services to people experiencing homelessness. You have to come and meet people where they’re at. You have to try and establish a trusting relationship so that we can get people on the path to recovery.”
 

‘It’s Really About Income’ 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Stephen Hwang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “There have been previous studies of this type, but it is good to have an updated one.” Dr. Hwang, who is also chair in Homelessness, Housing, and Health at St. Michael’s Hospital, did not participate in the research. 

The findings must be understood in the proper context, he added. For one thing, grouping together all mental health disorders and giving a single prevalence figure can be misleading. “They are including in that category a diverse group of conditions. Substance use disorder, personality disorder, schizophrenia, and depression are all lumped together. The 67% prevalence seems very high, but it is a combination of many different conditions. I just don’t want people to look at that number and think that this means that everyone is a substance user or everyone has schizophrenia,” said Dr. Hwang. 

Also, some readers might interpret the findings to mean that mental problems are the reason people are homeless, he added. “That would be an incorrect interpretation because what this study is showing is that people with mental health disorders have a higher risk for becoming homeless. It doesn’t mean that it caused their homelessness. What really causes homelessness is a lack of affordable housing,” said Dr. Hwang.

“In a city or community where housing is very expensive, there’s not enough for everyone to be housed, there is a lot of competition for housing, and there’s not enough affordable housing for a number of reasons, we know that people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders will be among the first to lose their housing,” he said.

“It’s really about income. There are many reasons why a person cannot afford housing. So, not being able to earn enough money to afford it because you have a mental health disorder or substance use disorder is a common underlying reason for homelessness.”

Dr. Hwang also pointed out that people with mental illness who can access support, either through family members or through mental health care, and who also have the income to afford such services do not become homeless.

“Schizophrenia is seen in every population of the world at a rate of 1%. But you travel to certain cities and you see people who appear to have schizophrenia wandering the streets, and you go to other cities in the world and you don’t see anyone who looks like they’re homeless and have schizophrenia,” he said. 

“It’s not because there are fewer people with schizophrenia in those cities or countries; it’s because people with schizophrenia are treated differently. The rate of homelessness is determined not by how many people have that condition [eg, schizophrenia] but by how we treat those people and how we set up our society to either support or not support people who have disabilities.”

The study was funded by the Precision Care With Information, Science and Experience – Mental Health grant funded by the Calgary Health Foundation. Dr. Barry is supported by the Harley Hotchkiss Samuel Weiss Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded by the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary. Dr. Barry reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seitz reported grants from Calgary Health Foundation during the conduct of the study as well as grants from University Health Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. He received honoraria for guideline development from the Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Hwang reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most people experiencing homelessness have mental health disorders, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In an examination of studies that included nearly 50,000 participants, the current prevalence of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness was 67% and the lifetime prevalence was 77%.

“The relationship is likely bidirectional, where experiencing homelessness may exacerbate mental health symptoms or where having a mental health disorder may increase an individual’s risk for experiencing homelessness,” lead author Rebecca Barry, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told this news organization. 

“There are also likely stressors that increase both risk for homelessness and risk for developing mental health disorders. This study examines prevalence but does not examine causal relationships,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A Growing Problem 

To determine the current and lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders among the homeless population, the researchers analyzed 85 studies that examined this question in participants aged ≥ 18 years. The review included 48,414 participants, including 11,154 (23%) women and 37,260 (77%) men.

The lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders was significantly higher in men experiencing homelessness (86%) than in women (69%). The most common mental health disorder was substance use disorder (44%), followed by antisocial personality disorder (26%), major depression (19%), bipolar disorder (8%), and schizophrenia (7%).

The prevalence of current and lifetime mental health disorders among the homeless population was higher than that that observed in the general population (13%-15% and 12%-47%, respectively).

The results resembled those of a previous review that estimated that 76% of people experiencing homelessness living in high-income countries have mental health disorders.

“Even though our results are not surprising, they still are drawing attention to this issue because it is a big problem in Canada, the United States, Europe, and other places,” senior author Dallas Seitz, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The problem is concerning, and it’s not getting better. Addiction and mental health problems are becoming more common among people who are homeless.” 

The bottom line is that people need affordable housing and mental health support, said Dr. Seitz. “It’s a housing problem and a health problem, and we need adequate resources to find better ways for those two systems to collaborate. There are public safety concerns, and we have to try and bring services to people experiencing homelessness. You have to come and meet people where they’re at. You have to try and establish a trusting relationship so that we can get people on the path to recovery.”
 

‘It’s Really About Income’ 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Stephen Hwang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “There have been previous studies of this type, but it is good to have an updated one.” Dr. Hwang, who is also chair in Homelessness, Housing, and Health at St. Michael’s Hospital, did not participate in the research. 

The findings must be understood in the proper context, he added. For one thing, grouping together all mental health disorders and giving a single prevalence figure can be misleading. “They are including in that category a diverse group of conditions. Substance use disorder, personality disorder, schizophrenia, and depression are all lumped together. The 67% prevalence seems very high, but it is a combination of many different conditions. I just don’t want people to look at that number and think that this means that everyone is a substance user or everyone has schizophrenia,” said Dr. Hwang. 

Also, some readers might interpret the findings to mean that mental problems are the reason people are homeless, he added. “That would be an incorrect interpretation because what this study is showing is that people with mental health disorders have a higher risk for becoming homeless. It doesn’t mean that it caused their homelessness. What really causes homelessness is a lack of affordable housing,” said Dr. Hwang.

“In a city or community where housing is very expensive, there’s not enough for everyone to be housed, there is a lot of competition for housing, and there’s not enough affordable housing for a number of reasons, we know that people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders will be among the first to lose their housing,” he said.

“It’s really about income. There are many reasons why a person cannot afford housing. So, not being able to earn enough money to afford it because you have a mental health disorder or substance use disorder is a common underlying reason for homelessness.”

Dr. Hwang also pointed out that people with mental illness who can access support, either through family members or through mental health care, and who also have the income to afford such services do not become homeless.

“Schizophrenia is seen in every population of the world at a rate of 1%. But you travel to certain cities and you see people who appear to have schizophrenia wandering the streets, and you go to other cities in the world and you don’t see anyone who looks like they’re homeless and have schizophrenia,” he said. 

“It’s not because there are fewer people with schizophrenia in those cities or countries; it’s because people with schizophrenia are treated differently. The rate of homelessness is determined not by how many people have that condition [eg, schizophrenia] but by how we treat those people and how we set up our society to either support or not support people who have disabilities.”

The study was funded by the Precision Care With Information, Science and Experience – Mental Health grant funded by the Calgary Health Foundation. Dr. Barry is supported by the Harley Hotchkiss Samuel Weiss Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded by the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary. Dr. Barry reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seitz reported grants from Calgary Health Foundation during the conduct of the study as well as grants from University Health Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. He received honoraria for guideline development from the Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Hwang reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Most people experiencing homelessness have mental health disorders, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In an examination of studies that included nearly 50,000 participants, the current prevalence of mental health disorders among people experiencing homelessness was 67% and the lifetime prevalence was 77%.

“The relationship is likely bidirectional, where experiencing homelessness may exacerbate mental health symptoms or where having a mental health disorder may increase an individual’s risk for experiencing homelessness,” lead author Rebecca Barry, PhD, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Calgary in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, told this news organization. 

“There are also likely stressors that increase both risk for homelessness and risk for developing mental health disorders. This study examines prevalence but does not examine causal relationships,” she said.

The findings were published in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

A Growing Problem 

To determine the current and lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders among the homeless population, the researchers analyzed 85 studies that examined this question in participants aged ≥ 18 years. The review included 48,414 participants, including 11,154 (23%) women and 37,260 (77%) men.

The lifetime prevalence of mental health disorders was significantly higher in men experiencing homelessness (86%) than in women (69%). The most common mental health disorder was substance use disorder (44%), followed by antisocial personality disorder (26%), major depression (19%), bipolar disorder (8%), and schizophrenia (7%).

The prevalence of current and lifetime mental health disorders among the homeless population was higher than that that observed in the general population (13%-15% and 12%-47%, respectively).

The results resembled those of a previous review that estimated that 76% of people experiencing homelessness living in high-income countries have mental health disorders.

“Even though our results are not surprising, they still are drawing attention to this issue because it is a big problem in Canada, the United States, Europe, and other places,” senior author Dallas Seitz, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at the University of Calgary’s Cumming School of Medicine, told this news organization. “The problem is concerning, and it’s not getting better. Addiction and mental health problems are becoming more common among people who are homeless.” 

The bottom line is that people need affordable housing and mental health support, said Dr. Seitz. “It’s a housing problem and a health problem, and we need adequate resources to find better ways for those two systems to collaborate. There are public safety concerns, and we have to try and bring services to people experiencing homelessness. You have to come and meet people where they’re at. You have to try and establish a trusting relationship so that we can get people on the path to recovery.”
 

‘It’s Really About Income’ 

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Stephen Hwang, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, said, “There have been previous studies of this type, but it is good to have an updated one.” Dr. Hwang, who is also chair in Homelessness, Housing, and Health at St. Michael’s Hospital, did not participate in the research. 

The findings must be understood in the proper context, he added. For one thing, grouping together all mental health disorders and giving a single prevalence figure can be misleading. “They are including in that category a diverse group of conditions. Substance use disorder, personality disorder, schizophrenia, and depression are all lumped together. The 67% prevalence seems very high, but it is a combination of many different conditions. I just don’t want people to look at that number and think that this means that everyone is a substance user or everyone has schizophrenia,” said Dr. Hwang. 

Also, some readers might interpret the findings to mean that mental problems are the reason people are homeless, he added. “That would be an incorrect interpretation because what this study is showing is that people with mental health disorders have a higher risk for becoming homeless. It doesn’t mean that it caused their homelessness. What really causes homelessness is a lack of affordable housing,” said Dr. Hwang.

“In a city or community where housing is very expensive, there’s not enough for everyone to be housed, there is a lot of competition for housing, and there’s not enough affordable housing for a number of reasons, we know that people with mental health conditions and substance use disorders will be among the first to lose their housing,” he said.

“It’s really about income. There are many reasons why a person cannot afford housing. So, not being able to earn enough money to afford it because you have a mental health disorder or substance use disorder is a common underlying reason for homelessness.”

Dr. Hwang also pointed out that people with mental illness who can access support, either through family members or through mental health care, and who also have the income to afford such services do not become homeless.

“Schizophrenia is seen in every population of the world at a rate of 1%. But you travel to certain cities and you see people who appear to have schizophrenia wandering the streets, and you go to other cities in the world and you don’t see anyone who looks like they’re homeless and have schizophrenia,” he said. 

“It’s not because there are fewer people with schizophrenia in those cities or countries; it’s because people with schizophrenia are treated differently. The rate of homelessness is determined not by how many people have that condition [eg, schizophrenia] but by how we treat those people and how we set up our society to either support or not support people who have disabilities.”

The study was funded by the Precision Care With Information, Science and Experience – Mental Health grant funded by the Calgary Health Foundation. Dr. Barry is supported by the Harley Hotchkiss Samuel Weiss Postdoctoral Fellowship awarded by the Hotchkiss Brain Institute at the University of Calgary. Dr. Barry reported having no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Seitz reported grants from Calgary Health Foundation during the conduct of the study as well as grants from University Health Foundation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Hotchkiss Brain Institute. He received honoraria for guideline development from the Canadian Coalition for Seniors Mental Health outside the submitted work. Dr. Hwang reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ketogenic diet shows promise in reducing the symptoms of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and reversing metabolic syndrome, results of a new pilot study show. 

Participants who adhered to the high-fat, low-carb diet experienced a 30% reduction in psychiatric symptoms and an average 10% reduction in weight. 

“We’re seeing huge changes,” first author Shebani Sethi, MD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California said in a press release. “Even if you’re on antipsychotic drugs, we can still reverse the obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and the insulin resistance. I think that’s very encouraging for patients.”

The findings were published online in Psychiatric Research. 
 

Neuroprotective Effect? 

Recent research supports the hypothesis that psychiatric illness may stem, at least in part, from deficits in brain metabolism and that a keto diet may be neuroprotective by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress. 

The pilot study included 21 participants with schizophrenia (n = 5) or bipolar disorder (n = 16) who were aged 18-75 years. All were currently taking psychotropic medications. Participants were overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and had gained more than 5% of their body mass while taking psychotropic medication, or they had at least one metabolic abnormality, such as insulin resistance or dyslipidemia. 

At baseline, participants received a physical and psychiatric evaluation and 1 hour of instruction on how to implement the keto diet, which included 10% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 60% fat. 

Investigators monitored blood ketone levels at least once a week and defined participants as keto-adherent if their levels were 0.5-5 mM for 80%-100% of the times they were measured.

Health coaches checked in with participants for about 5-10 minutes each week to answer diet-related questions.

Psychiatric assessments, which included mood rating and global functioning scales, were completed at baseline, 2 months, and at the end of the 4-month study. 

The research team tracked participants’ adherence to the diet by weekly measurement of blood ketone levels. 

By the end of the trial, 14 patients had been fully adherent with the diet, six had been semi-adherent, and only one had been nonadherent. Higher ketone levels, suggesting greater adherence, correlated with better metabolic health.

As measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia and Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder–Overall Severity, participants experienced a 31% reduction in symptom severity (P < .001). Overall, 43% (P < .02) of participants achieved recovery as defined by the Clinical Mood Monitoring Form criteria: 50% of the adherent group and 33% of those who were semi-adherent.
 

Metabolic Benefits

Initially, 29% of participants had metabolic syndrome and more than 85% had co-occurring medical conditions such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, or prediabetes. By the end of the study, none met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

On average, participants experienced a 10% reduction in weight and BMI. Waist circumference was reduced by 11%, fat mass index dropped by 17%, and systolic blood pressure decreased by 6%. In addition, metabolic markers including visceral fat, inflammation, A1c, and insulin resistance also improved. All outcomes were significant at P < .001 except for systolic blood pressure, at P < .005.

There was also a 20% reduction in triglycerides and a 21% increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (both at P < .02). 

The study’s limitations include its small sample size, the lack of control arm, and short duration.

“Mental health and physical health are interconnected and addressing metabolic issues can complement psychiatric treatment to enhance overall well-being. Understanding the

mechanisms and potential synergies between psychiatric treatment and metabolic improvements can also inform the development of more effective interventions,” the researchers wrote. 

The study was funded by the Baszucki Group, Kuen Lau Fund, and the Obesity Treatment Foundation. The authors declare no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ketogenic diet shows promise in reducing the symptoms of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and reversing metabolic syndrome, results of a new pilot study show. 

Participants who adhered to the high-fat, low-carb diet experienced a 30% reduction in psychiatric symptoms and an average 10% reduction in weight. 

“We’re seeing huge changes,” first author Shebani Sethi, MD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California said in a press release. “Even if you’re on antipsychotic drugs, we can still reverse the obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and the insulin resistance. I think that’s very encouraging for patients.”

The findings were published online in Psychiatric Research. 
 

Neuroprotective Effect? 

Recent research supports the hypothesis that psychiatric illness may stem, at least in part, from deficits in brain metabolism and that a keto diet may be neuroprotective by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress. 

The pilot study included 21 participants with schizophrenia (n = 5) or bipolar disorder (n = 16) who were aged 18-75 years. All were currently taking psychotropic medications. Participants were overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and had gained more than 5% of their body mass while taking psychotropic medication, or they had at least one metabolic abnormality, such as insulin resistance or dyslipidemia. 

At baseline, participants received a physical and psychiatric evaluation and 1 hour of instruction on how to implement the keto diet, which included 10% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 60% fat. 

Investigators monitored blood ketone levels at least once a week and defined participants as keto-adherent if their levels were 0.5-5 mM for 80%-100% of the times they were measured.

Health coaches checked in with participants for about 5-10 minutes each week to answer diet-related questions.

Psychiatric assessments, which included mood rating and global functioning scales, were completed at baseline, 2 months, and at the end of the 4-month study. 

The research team tracked participants’ adherence to the diet by weekly measurement of blood ketone levels. 

By the end of the trial, 14 patients had been fully adherent with the diet, six had been semi-adherent, and only one had been nonadherent. Higher ketone levels, suggesting greater adherence, correlated with better metabolic health.

As measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia and Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder–Overall Severity, participants experienced a 31% reduction in symptom severity (P < .001). Overall, 43% (P < .02) of participants achieved recovery as defined by the Clinical Mood Monitoring Form criteria: 50% of the adherent group and 33% of those who were semi-adherent.
 

Metabolic Benefits

Initially, 29% of participants had metabolic syndrome and more than 85% had co-occurring medical conditions such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, or prediabetes. By the end of the study, none met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

On average, participants experienced a 10% reduction in weight and BMI. Waist circumference was reduced by 11%, fat mass index dropped by 17%, and systolic blood pressure decreased by 6%. In addition, metabolic markers including visceral fat, inflammation, A1c, and insulin resistance also improved. All outcomes were significant at P < .001 except for systolic blood pressure, at P < .005.

There was also a 20% reduction in triglycerides and a 21% increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (both at P < .02). 

The study’s limitations include its small sample size, the lack of control arm, and short duration.

“Mental health and physical health are interconnected and addressing metabolic issues can complement psychiatric treatment to enhance overall well-being. Understanding the

mechanisms and potential synergies between psychiatric treatment and metabolic improvements can also inform the development of more effective interventions,” the researchers wrote. 

The study was funded by the Baszucki Group, Kuen Lau Fund, and the Obesity Treatment Foundation. The authors declare no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The ketogenic diet shows promise in reducing the symptoms of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and reversing metabolic syndrome, results of a new pilot study show. 

Participants who adhered to the high-fat, low-carb diet experienced a 30% reduction in psychiatric symptoms and an average 10% reduction in weight. 

“We’re seeing huge changes,” first author Shebani Sethi, MD, of Stanford University in Stanford, California said in a press release. “Even if you’re on antipsychotic drugs, we can still reverse the obesity, the metabolic syndrome, and the insulin resistance. I think that’s very encouraging for patients.”

The findings were published online in Psychiatric Research. 
 

Neuroprotective Effect? 

Recent research supports the hypothesis that psychiatric illness may stem, at least in part, from deficits in brain metabolism and that a keto diet may be neuroprotective by reducing inflammation and oxidative stress. 

The pilot study included 21 participants with schizophrenia (n = 5) or bipolar disorder (n = 16) who were aged 18-75 years. All were currently taking psychotropic medications. Participants were overweight (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 25) and had gained more than 5% of their body mass while taking psychotropic medication, or they had at least one metabolic abnormality, such as insulin resistance or dyslipidemia. 

At baseline, participants received a physical and psychiatric evaluation and 1 hour of instruction on how to implement the keto diet, which included 10% carbohydrate, 30% protein, and 60% fat. 

Investigators monitored blood ketone levels at least once a week and defined participants as keto-adherent if their levels were 0.5-5 mM for 80%-100% of the times they were measured.

Health coaches checked in with participants for about 5-10 minutes each week to answer diet-related questions.

Psychiatric assessments, which included mood rating and global functioning scales, were completed at baseline, 2 months, and at the end of the 4-month study. 

The research team tracked participants’ adherence to the diet by weekly measurement of blood ketone levels. 

By the end of the trial, 14 patients had been fully adherent with the diet, six had been semi-adherent, and only one had been nonadherent. Higher ketone levels, suggesting greater adherence, correlated with better metabolic health.

As measured by the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia and Clinical Global Impression for Bipolar Disorder–Overall Severity, participants experienced a 31% reduction in symptom severity (P < .001). Overall, 43% (P < .02) of participants achieved recovery as defined by the Clinical Mood Monitoring Form criteria: 50% of the adherent group and 33% of those who were semi-adherent.
 

Metabolic Benefits

Initially, 29% of participants had metabolic syndrome and more than 85% had co-occurring medical conditions such as obesity, hyperlipidemia, or prediabetes. By the end of the study, none met criteria for metabolic syndrome.

On average, participants experienced a 10% reduction in weight and BMI. Waist circumference was reduced by 11%, fat mass index dropped by 17%, and systolic blood pressure decreased by 6%. In addition, metabolic markers including visceral fat, inflammation, A1c, and insulin resistance also improved. All outcomes were significant at P < .001 except for systolic blood pressure, at P < .005.

There was also a 20% reduction in triglycerides and a 21% increase in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (both at P < .02). 

The study’s limitations include its small sample size, the lack of control arm, and short duration.

“Mental health and physical health are interconnected and addressing metabolic issues can complement psychiatric treatment to enhance overall well-being. Understanding the

mechanisms and potential synergies between psychiatric treatment and metabolic improvements can also inform the development of more effective interventions,” the researchers wrote. 

The study was funded by the Baszucki Group, Kuen Lau Fund, and the Obesity Treatment Foundation. The authors declare no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SYNLAB and ALCEDIAG recently launched the first blood test to assist in mental health diagnosis in France. The test is aimed at differentiating bipolar disorders from depression. The news may be surprising, given the challenges in diagnosing psychiatric conditions, especially when they share common symptoms such as recurrent depression and bipolar disorder.

Psychiatrists’ reactions to the new test are cautious. Many have echoed the sentiments of the French Association of Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN) and Stéphane Jamain, PhD, director of translational neuropsychiatry research (Inserm U955, Mondor Institute of Biomedical Research), who spoke with this news organization.

Early Diagnosis

Depression and bipolar disorders are two distinct psychiatric illnesses requiring different treatments. Early and accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment are major challenges for clinicians, especially since untreated or inadequately treated bipolar disorder can lead to significant mental and physical health consequences for patients and their families.

Published studies indicate that it takes an average of 8-10 years, and sometimes even longer, to diagnose bipolar disorder. The diagnosis is based on a psychiatric clinical examination, which is conducted by a specialist using validated questionnaires and evaluation scales.

Early and accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorders that allows for appropriate treatment would be a significant advance for patients and their families. This is what the French laboratories SYNLAB, in partnership with ALCEDIAG, propose through myEDIT-B, a blood test described as “the first validated diagnostic aid test to differentiate depression and bipolar disorders.”

Whether this test, the availability of which has somewhat surprised the psychiatric medical and scientific community, will attract psychiatrists remains to be seen.

The AFPBN stated in a press release that “to date, no test meets conditions for clinical use.” For a diagnostic test to be scientifically valid, ethical, and usable in clinical practice, its development must meet strict criteria, as highlighted by the AFPBN. The approximately 10 criteria include the validation of the scientific results in at least two independent clinical studies or cohorts, satisfactory sensitivity (detection of true positives) and specificity (detection of false negatives), and cost that is ethically responsible and allows patient access, independent of commercial interests.

ALCEDIAG has reported two clinical studies, but only one has been published so far (in Translational Psychiatry) involving 400 patients. In this case, “these patients already had a well-established psychiatric condition, did not quite present the same symptoms between patients with recurrent depression and those with bipolar disorder and were not taking the same treatments,” noted Dr. Jamain.

Differentiating between bipolar disorder and depression is crucial, especially regarding treatments, because antidepressants given to a patient with bipolar disorder can induce a manic shift if they are not accompanied by mood stabilizers, Dr. Jamain acknowledged. Nevertheless, he believes that based on what the laboratory has published, it is difficult to comment on the test at this time.

RNA Editing 

Moreover, myEDIT-B is based on a technique that measures RNA editing modifications of specific markers in patients’ blood, which could lead to differences in amino acids within proteins. The technique is unique to the ALCEDIAG laboratory, which coupled it with an artificial intelligence tool that specifically selected 8 RNA sequences for analysis from thousands of edited sequences to obtain a differential signature for unipolar and bipolar depressions. “This method is niche, the trademark of ALCEDIAG,” said Dr. Jamain, who questions the significance of this “editing” on the periphery of the CNS.

“This technique differs from that adopted by most international consortia, which are very active in this research field. The latter technique compares differences in genome [DNA] nucleotides between individuals in large cohorts involving tens of thousands of people and identifies the most frequently occurring patterns associated with a pathology to deduce a risk of developing a psychiatric illness,” said Jamain. “However, the information provided by these large-scale studies does not allow us to define who is at risk for developing the disease any more than the simple observation of the familial recurrence [heritability] of it does.” 

Scientific Validation 

While ALCEDIAG boasts a sensitivity and specificity of more than 80% for its test, the psychiatric world remains cautious. Interviewed by France Info TV, Marion Leboyer, PhD, general director of the FondaMental Foundation, psychiatrist, and researcher (at AP-HP, Inserm in Créteil, France), highlighted the importance of encouraging research on psychiatric illnesses, especially that which will contribute to the understanding and treatment of patients with bipolar disorders. But she expressed caution regarding the test because of the absence of rigorous scientific validation through clinical trials.

Regarding “ALCEDIAG’s test and its commercial aspect, caution is warranted,” said Dr. Jamain. Only time will tell if psychiatrists will prescribe this €899 test, which currently is not reimbursed by social security (see box below). ALCEDIAG plans to submit a validation dossier to the US Food and Drug Administration.

Test Not Reimbursed by Social Security

The ALCEDIAG test will be available beginning in April 2024, by prescription, in SYNLAB France network laboratories. It is intended for patients aged 18 years and older who are being treated for a moderate or severe depressive episode. Test results are transmitted within 4 weeks to the prescribing psychiatrist, who will confirm the diagnosis to the patient during a consultation. Already available in Italy, this in vitro medical device has a CE-IVD marking. In France, however, it costs €899 and is not reimbursed by social security because of insufficient clinical evidence.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SYNLAB and ALCEDIAG recently launched the first blood test to assist in mental health diagnosis in France. The test is aimed at differentiating bipolar disorders from depression. The news may be surprising, given the challenges in diagnosing psychiatric conditions, especially when they share common symptoms such as recurrent depression and bipolar disorder.

Psychiatrists’ reactions to the new test are cautious. Many have echoed the sentiments of the French Association of Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN) and Stéphane Jamain, PhD, director of translational neuropsychiatry research (Inserm U955, Mondor Institute of Biomedical Research), who spoke with this news organization.

Early Diagnosis

Depression and bipolar disorders are two distinct psychiatric illnesses requiring different treatments. Early and accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment are major challenges for clinicians, especially since untreated or inadequately treated bipolar disorder can lead to significant mental and physical health consequences for patients and their families.

Published studies indicate that it takes an average of 8-10 years, and sometimes even longer, to diagnose bipolar disorder. The diagnosis is based on a psychiatric clinical examination, which is conducted by a specialist using validated questionnaires and evaluation scales.

Early and accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorders that allows for appropriate treatment would be a significant advance for patients and their families. This is what the French laboratories SYNLAB, in partnership with ALCEDIAG, propose through myEDIT-B, a blood test described as “the first validated diagnostic aid test to differentiate depression and bipolar disorders.”

Whether this test, the availability of which has somewhat surprised the psychiatric medical and scientific community, will attract psychiatrists remains to be seen.

The AFPBN stated in a press release that “to date, no test meets conditions for clinical use.” For a diagnostic test to be scientifically valid, ethical, and usable in clinical practice, its development must meet strict criteria, as highlighted by the AFPBN. The approximately 10 criteria include the validation of the scientific results in at least two independent clinical studies or cohorts, satisfactory sensitivity (detection of true positives) and specificity (detection of false negatives), and cost that is ethically responsible and allows patient access, independent of commercial interests.

ALCEDIAG has reported two clinical studies, but only one has been published so far (in Translational Psychiatry) involving 400 patients. In this case, “these patients already had a well-established psychiatric condition, did not quite present the same symptoms between patients with recurrent depression and those with bipolar disorder and were not taking the same treatments,” noted Dr. Jamain.

Differentiating between bipolar disorder and depression is crucial, especially regarding treatments, because antidepressants given to a patient with bipolar disorder can induce a manic shift if they are not accompanied by mood stabilizers, Dr. Jamain acknowledged. Nevertheless, he believes that based on what the laboratory has published, it is difficult to comment on the test at this time.

RNA Editing 

Moreover, myEDIT-B is based on a technique that measures RNA editing modifications of specific markers in patients’ blood, which could lead to differences in amino acids within proteins. The technique is unique to the ALCEDIAG laboratory, which coupled it with an artificial intelligence tool that specifically selected 8 RNA sequences for analysis from thousands of edited sequences to obtain a differential signature for unipolar and bipolar depressions. “This method is niche, the trademark of ALCEDIAG,” said Dr. Jamain, who questions the significance of this “editing” on the periphery of the CNS.

“This technique differs from that adopted by most international consortia, which are very active in this research field. The latter technique compares differences in genome [DNA] nucleotides between individuals in large cohorts involving tens of thousands of people and identifies the most frequently occurring patterns associated with a pathology to deduce a risk of developing a psychiatric illness,” said Jamain. “However, the information provided by these large-scale studies does not allow us to define who is at risk for developing the disease any more than the simple observation of the familial recurrence [heritability] of it does.” 

Scientific Validation 

While ALCEDIAG boasts a sensitivity and specificity of more than 80% for its test, the psychiatric world remains cautious. Interviewed by France Info TV, Marion Leboyer, PhD, general director of the FondaMental Foundation, psychiatrist, and researcher (at AP-HP, Inserm in Créteil, France), highlighted the importance of encouraging research on psychiatric illnesses, especially that which will contribute to the understanding and treatment of patients with bipolar disorders. But she expressed caution regarding the test because of the absence of rigorous scientific validation through clinical trials.

Regarding “ALCEDIAG’s test and its commercial aspect, caution is warranted,” said Dr. Jamain. Only time will tell if psychiatrists will prescribe this €899 test, which currently is not reimbursed by social security (see box below). ALCEDIAG plans to submit a validation dossier to the US Food and Drug Administration.

Test Not Reimbursed by Social Security

The ALCEDIAG test will be available beginning in April 2024, by prescription, in SYNLAB France network laboratories. It is intended for patients aged 18 years and older who are being treated for a moderate or severe depressive episode. Test results are transmitted within 4 weeks to the prescribing psychiatrist, who will confirm the diagnosis to the patient during a consultation. Already available in Italy, this in vitro medical device has a CE-IVD marking. In France, however, it costs €899 and is not reimbursed by social security because of insufficient clinical evidence.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SYNLAB and ALCEDIAG recently launched the first blood test to assist in mental health diagnosis in France. The test is aimed at differentiating bipolar disorders from depression. The news may be surprising, given the challenges in diagnosing psychiatric conditions, especially when they share common symptoms such as recurrent depression and bipolar disorder.

Psychiatrists’ reactions to the new test are cautious. Many have echoed the sentiments of the French Association of Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN) and Stéphane Jamain, PhD, director of translational neuropsychiatry research (Inserm U955, Mondor Institute of Biomedical Research), who spoke with this news organization.

Early Diagnosis

Depression and bipolar disorders are two distinct psychiatric illnesses requiring different treatments. Early and accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment are major challenges for clinicians, especially since untreated or inadequately treated bipolar disorder can lead to significant mental and physical health consequences for patients and their families.

Published studies indicate that it takes an average of 8-10 years, and sometimes even longer, to diagnose bipolar disorder. The diagnosis is based on a psychiatric clinical examination, which is conducted by a specialist using validated questionnaires and evaluation scales.

Early and accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorders that allows for appropriate treatment would be a significant advance for patients and their families. This is what the French laboratories SYNLAB, in partnership with ALCEDIAG, propose through myEDIT-B, a blood test described as “the first validated diagnostic aid test to differentiate depression and bipolar disorders.”

Whether this test, the availability of which has somewhat surprised the psychiatric medical and scientific community, will attract psychiatrists remains to be seen.

The AFPBN stated in a press release that “to date, no test meets conditions for clinical use.” For a diagnostic test to be scientifically valid, ethical, and usable in clinical practice, its development must meet strict criteria, as highlighted by the AFPBN. The approximately 10 criteria include the validation of the scientific results in at least two independent clinical studies or cohorts, satisfactory sensitivity (detection of true positives) and specificity (detection of false negatives), and cost that is ethically responsible and allows patient access, independent of commercial interests.

ALCEDIAG has reported two clinical studies, but only one has been published so far (in Translational Psychiatry) involving 400 patients. In this case, “these patients already had a well-established psychiatric condition, did not quite present the same symptoms between patients with recurrent depression and those with bipolar disorder and were not taking the same treatments,” noted Dr. Jamain.

Differentiating between bipolar disorder and depression is crucial, especially regarding treatments, because antidepressants given to a patient with bipolar disorder can induce a manic shift if they are not accompanied by mood stabilizers, Dr. Jamain acknowledged. Nevertheless, he believes that based on what the laboratory has published, it is difficult to comment on the test at this time.

RNA Editing 

Moreover, myEDIT-B is based on a technique that measures RNA editing modifications of specific markers in patients’ blood, which could lead to differences in amino acids within proteins. The technique is unique to the ALCEDIAG laboratory, which coupled it with an artificial intelligence tool that specifically selected 8 RNA sequences for analysis from thousands of edited sequences to obtain a differential signature for unipolar and bipolar depressions. “This method is niche, the trademark of ALCEDIAG,” said Dr. Jamain, who questions the significance of this “editing” on the periphery of the CNS.

“This technique differs from that adopted by most international consortia, which are very active in this research field. The latter technique compares differences in genome [DNA] nucleotides between individuals in large cohorts involving tens of thousands of people and identifies the most frequently occurring patterns associated with a pathology to deduce a risk of developing a psychiatric illness,” said Jamain. “However, the information provided by these large-scale studies does not allow us to define who is at risk for developing the disease any more than the simple observation of the familial recurrence [heritability] of it does.” 

Scientific Validation 

While ALCEDIAG boasts a sensitivity and specificity of more than 80% for its test, the psychiatric world remains cautious. Interviewed by France Info TV, Marion Leboyer, PhD, general director of the FondaMental Foundation, psychiatrist, and researcher (at AP-HP, Inserm in Créteil, France), highlighted the importance of encouraging research on psychiatric illnesses, especially that which will contribute to the understanding and treatment of patients with bipolar disorders. But she expressed caution regarding the test because of the absence of rigorous scientific validation through clinical trials.

Regarding “ALCEDIAG’s test and its commercial aspect, caution is warranted,” said Dr. Jamain. Only time will tell if psychiatrists will prescribe this €899 test, which currently is not reimbursed by social security (see box below). ALCEDIAG plans to submit a validation dossier to the US Food and Drug Administration.

Test Not Reimbursed by Social Security

The ALCEDIAG test will be available beginning in April 2024, by prescription, in SYNLAB France network laboratories. It is intended for patients aged 18 years and older who are being treated for a moderate or severe depressive episode. Test results are transmitted within 4 weeks to the prescribing psychiatrist, who will confirm the diagnosis to the patient during a consultation. Already available in Italy, this in vitro medical device has a CE-IVD marking. In France, however, it costs €899 and is not reimbursed by social security because of insufficient clinical evidence.

This story was translated from the Medscape French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bipolar 1 disorder is a chronic and disabling mental health disorder that results in cognitive, functional, and social impairments associated with an increased risk for hospitalization and premature death.

Bipolar 1 disorder is characterized by manic episodes that last for at least 7 days, or manic symptoms that are so severe that they require immediate medical care. Depressive episodes also occur.

Dr Michael Thase, from the University of Pennsylvania, explains that although ongoing treatment is essential to prevent relapse and recurrence, particularly after a hospitalization, adherence can be serious problem.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) agents can act as a bridge between oral medications initiated in hospital and ongoing prevention therapies.

Dr Thase says LAIs can help improve adherence and patient quality of life, and are effective against relapses in adults with bipolar 1 disorder.

--

Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc; Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuticals; Seelos Therapeutics; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W.W. Norton & Company, Inc

Bipolar 1 disorder is a chronic and disabling mental health disorder that results in cognitive, functional, and social impairments associated with an increased risk for hospitalization and premature death.

Bipolar 1 disorder is characterized by manic episodes that last for at least 7 days, or manic symptoms that are so severe that they require immediate medical care. Depressive episodes also occur.

Dr Michael Thase, from the University of Pennsylvania, explains that although ongoing treatment is essential to prevent relapse and recurrence, particularly after a hospitalization, adherence can be serious problem.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) agents can act as a bridge between oral medications initiated in hospital and ongoing prevention therapies.

Dr Thase says LAIs can help improve adherence and patient quality of life, and are effective against relapses in adults with bipolar 1 disorder.

--

Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc; Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuticals; Seelos Therapeutics; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W.W. Norton & Company, Inc

Bipolar 1 disorder is a chronic and disabling mental health disorder that results in cognitive, functional, and social impairments associated with an increased risk for hospitalization and premature death.

Bipolar 1 disorder is characterized by manic episodes that last for at least 7 days, or manic symptoms that are so severe that they require immediate medical care. Depressive episodes also occur.

Dr Michael Thase, from the University of Pennsylvania, explains that although ongoing treatment is essential to prevent relapse and recurrence, particularly after a hospitalization, adherence can be serious problem.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) agents can act as a bridge between oral medications initiated in hospital and ongoing prevention therapies.

Dr Thase says LAIs can help improve adherence and patient quality of life, and are effective against relapses in adults with bipolar 1 disorder.

--

Michael E. Thase, MD, Professor of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Michael E. Thase, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as an advisor or consultant for: Acadia, Inc; Akili, Inc; Alkermes PLC; Allergan, Inc; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Bocemtium Consulting, SL; Boehringer Ingelheim International; CatalYm GmbH; Clexio Biosciences; Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc; H Lundbeck, A/S; Jazz Pharmaceuticals; Janssen; Johnson & Johnson; Luye Pharma Group, Ltd; Merck & Company, Inc; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Pfizer, Inc; Sage Pharmaceuticals; Seelos Therapeutics; Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive research funding from: Acadia, Inc; Allergan, Inc; AssureRx; Axsome Therapeutics, Inc; Biohaven, Inc; Intracellular, Inc; Johnson & Johnson; Otsuka Pharmaceuticals Company, Ltd; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI); Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Ltd

Receive royalties from: American Psychiatric Foundation; Guilford Publications; Herald House; Kluwer-Wolters; W.W. Norton & Company, Inc

Recent research highlights the potential role of an atypical antipsychotic to treat anxiety, a prevalent and undertreated symptom in bipolar I disorder (BPD). Notably, investigators said, the drug comes without the typical metabolic side effects, including weight gain, associated with this drug class.

A post hoc analysis of pooled data from two trials comparing two different doses of cariprazine (Vraylar) to placebo showed it was consistently effective not only in alleviating bipolar depression but also in improving symptoms of anxiety.

“Since this was a post hoc analysis, one has to be careful about not overstating the findings,” said study investigator Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit.

“But what we can say is that anxiety has been an under-researched, undertreated symptom dimension in BPD, and these findings about cariprazine are very promising,” said Dr. McIntyre, chair and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto.

The analysis was published in International Clinical Psychopharmacology) and was presented as a poster at the 2023 Neuroscience Education Institute, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
 

Ubiquitous, Common, Hazardous

Anxiety in BPD is “ubiquitous, common, and hazardous,” Dr. McIntyre said. “We talk so much about depression and mania as cardinal presentations, but someone could make a case that in that trifecta, we’re missing anxiety.”

In patients with BPD and anxiety, “the index episode is much more difficult to treat, there’s a longer time to remission, lower rates of recovery, and a shorter time to recurrence,” noted Dr. McIntyre, chair of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Anxiety also may “represent a portent of other things that can add more to the trouble, like alcohol, illicit drugs, or cannabis use — especially now that cannabis is no longer illegal,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Unfortunately, he said, “there hasn’t been an organized, systematic approach to developing a therapy for anxiety in BPD.” Rather, patients are prescribed benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, all of which have limitations, he added.

Some atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine have been shown to be helpful with anxiety but “have a lot of baggage and side effects — especially sedation, somnolence, weight gain, and metabolic problems,” Dr. McIntyre noted.

Cariprazine is a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 partial agonist, a serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, and 5-HT2B receptor antagonist, which has shown anxiolytic-like activity in rodent models.

It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat mania, depression, and mixed episodes of BPD in 2015 and BPD in 2019.

Dr. McIntyre and his team believed there was an opportunity in the completed randomized controlled trials of cariprazine in BPD to conduct a post hoc analysis of its impact on anxiety.
 

‘Cornerstone Mood Stabilizer’

The researchers pooled data from two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in adults with BPD experiencing a current major depressive episode.

The pooled intention-to-treat population consisted of 952 patients with BPD (mean age, ~43 years; 62% female) randomized to receive either 1.5 mg/d, 3 mg/d of cariprazine, or placebo. Patients were divided into two subsets: Lower or higher anxiety (defined as a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A] total score of < 18 and ≥ 18, respectively). Patients also completed the Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale (MADRS).

A third of the patients received a placebo, a third received the 1.5 mg/d dose, and a third received the 3 mg/d dose. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the subsets.

Results showed there was a statistically significant change in HAM-A total score for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d (P = .0027). The investigators also found a statistically significant change in MADRS total score change for cariprazine 1.5 mg (P = .0200) in the higher anxiety subset. The rate of remission was significantly greater for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d in the higher and lower anxiety subsets (P = .0172 and P = .0004, respectively).

In addition, the change in HAM-A total score change was statistically significant for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d in the higher anxiety subgroup (P = .0105) and the 3 mg/d dose in the lower anxiety subgroup (P = .0441).

Dr. McIntyre hopes these findings can be replicated in other trials.

“Clinically, I find that many patients who take cariprazine don’t require as many benzodiazepines or other medications for anxiety, and it’s one of the better-tolerated medications without metabolic complications or weight gain, so it’s become a cornerstone mood stabilizer,” he said.
 

Polypharmacy Avoided

Another recent study retrospectively analyzed medical records of close to 40 adult patients with BPD I who were receiving treatment with aripiprazole for bipolar depression and then switched to cariprazine.

“We wanted to conduct a study in depressed patients who had gained weight on aripiprazole and then directly switched to cariprazine. It improved their mood and helped mitigate weight gain, thereby avoiding polypharmacy of additional antidepressants and weight loss agents,” said study investigator Maxwell Zachary Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, New Jersey.

“In our general outpatient psychiatry practice, we’ve treated many adult patients with oral aripiprazole for maintenance of BPD,” the study’s senior investigator, Richard Price, MD, clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, added.

Aripiprazole is associated with weight gain. Moreover, aripiprazole “hasn’t shown efficacy in managing BPD,” he said.

Most patients in Dr. Price’s practice are insured through Medicaid, which mandates treatment with aripiprazole before covering cariprazine. “We noticed their weight had been creeping up over the years, and they also were experiencing depressive symptoms,” he said.

The requirement to initiate treatment with aripiprazole before switching to cariprazine offered Dr. Price an opportunity to compare the two agents in this real-world setting by retrospectively reviewing the charts of 37 patients with BPD (23 females and 14 males who made the switch). The patients had been taking aripiprazole for a mean duration of 94.9 weeks and had experienced a mean increase in body weight of 16.1% ± 12.3% on aripiprazole before switching.

Patients who were taking 2 mg-10 mg of aripiprazole were switched to 1.5 mg of cariprazine, while those taking ≥ 15 mg of aripiprazole were switched to 3 mg of cariprazine.

“Patients tolerated the switch well and maintained stability during the transition,” and “no patients discontinued cariprazine during the study,” Dr. Price said.

After a mean duration of 36.7 weeks (range, 1-127 weeks), the patients showed a decrease in Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness Scale score from a mean of 5.0 ± 0.9 to a mean of 2.8 ± 0.7 (t = −12.75, P < .00001).

The patients’ weight dropped from a mean of 90.3± 21.5 kg on aripiprazole to a mean of 83.9 ± 19.2 kg on cariprazine (t = −4.22, P < .001).

Two patients experienced initial nausea that resolved by taking the medication with food, and two experienced initial restlessness that resolved with dosage reduction.

“We found that the patients were lighter in mood, body habitus and weight, and less agitated and their mental alertness and concentration improved as well,” said Dr. Price. He hopes that further research in randomized blinded trials will corroborate the findings.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

Joseph Cerimele, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington, Division of Population Health, UW Medicine, Seattle, Washington, said the research findings are “hypothesis-generating.”

Dr. Ciremele, who wasn’t involved with either study, said many clinicians and researchers are trying to tailor treatment options to match patient characteristics, and these studies and other similar research, “help us all ask questions related to concurrent symptoms in bipolar depression.”

However, the post hoc analysis was a secondary analysis of an efficacy trial where individuals with concurrent anxiety disorders were excluded. “So, a next step might be to evaluate this and other treatments in individuals with BPD and concurrent anxiety disorders,” he said.

The study by Jain et al was funded by AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. His coauthors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Mr. Price and Dr. Cerimele reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent research highlights the potential role of an atypical antipsychotic to treat anxiety, a prevalent and undertreated symptom in bipolar I disorder (BPD). Notably, investigators said, the drug comes without the typical metabolic side effects, including weight gain, associated with this drug class.

A post hoc analysis of pooled data from two trials comparing two different doses of cariprazine (Vraylar) to placebo showed it was consistently effective not only in alleviating bipolar depression but also in improving symptoms of anxiety.

“Since this was a post hoc analysis, one has to be careful about not overstating the findings,” said study investigator Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit.

“But what we can say is that anxiety has been an under-researched, undertreated symptom dimension in BPD, and these findings about cariprazine are very promising,” said Dr. McIntyre, chair and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto.

The analysis was published in International Clinical Psychopharmacology) and was presented as a poster at the 2023 Neuroscience Education Institute, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
 

Ubiquitous, Common, Hazardous

Anxiety in BPD is “ubiquitous, common, and hazardous,” Dr. McIntyre said. “We talk so much about depression and mania as cardinal presentations, but someone could make a case that in that trifecta, we’re missing anxiety.”

In patients with BPD and anxiety, “the index episode is much more difficult to treat, there’s a longer time to remission, lower rates of recovery, and a shorter time to recurrence,” noted Dr. McIntyre, chair of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Anxiety also may “represent a portent of other things that can add more to the trouble, like alcohol, illicit drugs, or cannabis use — especially now that cannabis is no longer illegal,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Unfortunately, he said, “there hasn’t been an organized, systematic approach to developing a therapy for anxiety in BPD.” Rather, patients are prescribed benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, all of which have limitations, he added.

Some atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine have been shown to be helpful with anxiety but “have a lot of baggage and side effects — especially sedation, somnolence, weight gain, and metabolic problems,” Dr. McIntyre noted.

Cariprazine is a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 partial agonist, a serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, and 5-HT2B receptor antagonist, which has shown anxiolytic-like activity in rodent models.

It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat mania, depression, and mixed episodes of BPD in 2015 and BPD in 2019.

Dr. McIntyre and his team believed there was an opportunity in the completed randomized controlled trials of cariprazine in BPD to conduct a post hoc analysis of its impact on anxiety.
 

‘Cornerstone Mood Stabilizer’

The researchers pooled data from two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in adults with BPD experiencing a current major depressive episode.

The pooled intention-to-treat population consisted of 952 patients with BPD (mean age, ~43 years; 62% female) randomized to receive either 1.5 mg/d, 3 mg/d of cariprazine, or placebo. Patients were divided into two subsets: Lower or higher anxiety (defined as a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A] total score of < 18 and ≥ 18, respectively). Patients also completed the Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale (MADRS).

A third of the patients received a placebo, a third received the 1.5 mg/d dose, and a third received the 3 mg/d dose. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the subsets.

Results showed there was a statistically significant change in HAM-A total score for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d (P = .0027). The investigators also found a statistically significant change in MADRS total score change for cariprazine 1.5 mg (P = .0200) in the higher anxiety subset. The rate of remission was significantly greater for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d in the higher and lower anxiety subsets (P = .0172 and P = .0004, respectively).

In addition, the change in HAM-A total score change was statistically significant for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d in the higher anxiety subgroup (P = .0105) and the 3 mg/d dose in the lower anxiety subgroup (P = .0441).

Dr. McIntyre hopes these findings can be replicated in other trials.

“Clinically, I find that many patients who take cariprazine don’t require as many benzodiazepines or other medications for anxiety, and it’s one of the better-tolerated medications without metabolic complications or weight gain, so it’s become a cornerstone mood stabilizer,” he said.
 

Polypharmacy Avoided

Another recent study retrospectively analyzed medical records of close to 40 adult patients with BPD I who were receiving treatment with aripiprazole for bipolar depression and then switched to cariprazine.

“We wanted to conduct a study in depressed patients who had gained weight on aripiprazole and then directly switched to cariprazine. It improved their mood and helped mitigate weight gain, thereby avoiding polypharmacy of additional antidepressants and weight loss agents,” said study investigator Maxwell Zachary Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, New Jersey.

“In our general outpatient psychiatry practice, we’ve treated many adult patients with oral aripiprazole for maintenance of BPD,” the study’s senior investigator, Richard Price, MD, clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, added.

Aripiprazole is associated with weight gain. Moreover, aripiprazole “hasn’t shown efficacy in managing BPD,” he said.

Most patients in Dr. Price’s practice are insured through Medicaid, which mandates treatment with aripiprazole before covering cariprazine. “We noticed their weight had been creeping up over the years, and they also were experiencing depressive symptoms,” he said.

The requirement to initiate treatment with aripiprazole before switching to cariprazine offered Dr. Price an opportunity to compare the two agents in this real-world setting by retrospectively reviewing the charts of 37 patients with BPD (23 females and 14 males who made the switch). The patients had been taking aripiprazole for a mean duration of 94.9 weeks and had experienced a mean increase in body weight of 16.1% ± 12.3% on aripiprazole before switching.

Patients who were taking 2 mg-10 mg of aripiprazole were switched to 1.5 mg of cariprazine, while those taking ≥ 15 mg of aripiprazole were switched to 3 mg of cariprazine.

“Patients tolerated the switch well and maintained stability during the transition,” and “no patients discontinued cariprazine during the study,” Dr. Price said.

After a mean duration of 36.7 weeks (range, 1-127 weeks), the patients showed a decrease in Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness Scale score from a mean of 5.0 ± 0.9 to a mean of 2.8 ± 0.7 (t = −12.75, P < .00001).

The patients’ weight dropped from a mean of 90.3± 21.5 kg on aripiprazole to a mean of 83.9 ± 19.2 kg on cariprazine (t = −4.22, P < .001).

Two patients experienced initial nausea that resolved by taking the medication with food, and two experienced initial restlessness that resolved with dosage reduction.

“We found that the patients were lighter in mood, body habitus and weight, and less agitated and their mental alertness and concentration improved as well,” said Dr. Price. He hopes that further research in randomized blinded trials will corroborate the findings.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

Joseph Cerimele, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington, Division of Population Health, UW Medicine, Seattle, Washington, said the research findings are “hypothesis-generating.”

Dr. Ciremele, who wasn’t involved with either study, said many clinicians and researchers are trying to tailor treatment options to match patient characteristics, and these studies and other similar research, “help us all ask questions related to concurrent symptoms in bipolar depression.”

However, the post hoc analysis was a secondary analysis of an efficacy trial where individuals with concurrent anxiety disorders were excluded. “So, a next step might be to evaluate this and other treatments in individuals with BPD and concurrent anxiety disorders,” he said.

The study by Jain et al was funded by AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. His coauthors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Mr. Price and Dr. Cerimele reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent research highlights the potential role of an atypical antipsychotic to treat anxiety, a prevalent and undertreated symptom in bipolar I disorder (BPD). Notably, investigators said, the drug comes without the typical metabolic side effects, including weight gain, associated with this drug class.

A post hoc analysis of pooled data from two trials comparing two different doses of cariprazine (Vraylar) to placebo showed it was consistently effective not only in alleviating bipolar depression but also in improving symptoms of anxiety.

“Since this was a post hoc analysis, one has to be careful about not overstating the findings,” said study investigator Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and head of the Mood Disorders Psychopharmacology Unit.

“But what we can say is that anxiety has been an under-researched, undertreated symptom dimension in BPD, and these findings about cariprazine are very promising,” said Dr. McIntyre, chair and executive director of the Brain and Cognition Discovery Foundation, also in Toronto.

The analysis was published in International Clinical Psychopharmacology) and was presented as a poster at the 2023 Neuroscience Education Institute, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
 

Ubiquitous, Common, Hazardous

Anxiety in BPD is “ubiquitous, common, and hazardous,” Dr. McIntyre said. “We talk so much about depression and mania as cardinal presentations, but someone could make a case that in that trifecta, we’re missing anxiety.”

In patients with BPD and anxiety, “the index episode is much more difficult to treat, there’s a longer time to remission, lower rates of recovery, and a shorter time to recurrence,” noted Dr. McIntyre, chair of the board of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Anxiety also may “represent a portent of other things that can add more to the trouble, like alcohol, illicit drugs, or cannabis use — especially now that cannabis is no longer illegal,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Unfortunately, he said, “there hasn’t been an organized, systematic approach to developing a therapy for anxiety in BPD.” Rather, patients are prescribed benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, all of which have limitations, he added.

Some atypical antipsychotics such as quetiapine have been shown to be helpful with anxiety but “have a lot of baggage and side effects — especially sedation, somnolence, weight gain, and metabolic problems,” Dr. McIntyre noted.

Cariprazine is a dopamine D3-preferring D3/D2 partial agonist, a serotonin 5-HT1A receptor partial agonist, and 5-HT2B receptor antagonist, which has shown anxiolytic-like activity in rodent models.

It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration to treat mania, depression, and mixed episodes of BPD in 2015 and BPD in 2019.

Dr. McIntyre and his team believed there was an opportunity in the completed randomized controlled trials of cariprazine in BPD to conduct a post hoc analysis of its impact on anxiety.
 

‘Cornerstone Mood Stabilizer’

The researchers pooled data from two phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in adults with BPD experiencing a current major depressive episode.

The pooled intention-to-treat population consisted of 952 patients with BPD (mean age, ~43 years; 62% female) randomized to receive either 1.5 mg/d, 3 mg/d of cariprazine, or placebo. Patients were divided into two subsets: Lower or higher anxiety (defined as a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale [HAM-A] total score of < 18 and ≥ 18, respectively). Patients also completed the Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale (MADRS).

A third of the patients received a placebo, a third received the 1.5 mg/d dose, and a third received the 3 mg/d dose. Demographic and baseline characteristics were similar between the subsets.

Results showed there was a statistically significant change in HAM-A total score for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d (P = .0027). The investigators also found a statistically significant change in MADRS total score change for cariprazine 1.5 mg (P = .0200) in the higher anxiety subset. The rate of remission was significantly greater for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d in the higher and lower anxiety subsets (P = .0172 and P = .0004, respectively).

In addition, the change in HAM-A total score change was statistically significant for cariprazine 1.5 mg/d in the higher anxiety subgroup (P = .0105) and the 3 mg/d dose in the lower anxiety subgroup (P = .0441).

Dr. McIntyre hopes these findings can be replicated in other trials.

“Clinically, I find that many patients who take cariprazine don’t require as many benzodiazepines or other medications for anxiety, and it’s one of the better-tolerated medications without metabolic complications or weight gain, so it’s become a cornerstone mood stabilizer,” he said.
 

Polypharmacy Avoided

Another recent study retrospectively analyzed medical records of close to 40 adult patients with BPD I who were receiving treatment with aripiprazole for bipolar depression and then switched to cariprazine.

“We wanted to conduct a study in depressed patients who had gained weight on aripiprazole and then directly switched to cariprazine. It improved their mood and helped mitigate weight gain, thereby avoiding polypharmacy of additional antidepressants and weight loss agents,” said study investigator Maxwell Zachary Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, New Jersey.

“In our general outpatient psychiatry practice, we’ve treated many adult patients with oral aripiprazole for maintenance of BPD,” the study’s senior investigator, Richard Price, MD, clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, added.

Aripiprazole is associated with weight gain. Moreover, aripiprazole “hasn’t shown efficacy in managing BPD,” he said.

Most patients in Dr. Price’s practice are insured through Medicaid, which mandates treatment with aripiprazole before covering cariprazine. “We noticed their weight had been creeping up over the years, and they also were experiencing depressive symptoms,” he said.

The requirement to initiate treatment with aripiprazole before switching to cariprazine offered Dr. Price an opportunity to compare the two agents in this real-world setting by retrospectively reviewing the charts of 37 patients with BPD (23 females and 14 males who made the switch). The patients had been taking aripiprazole for a mean duration of 94.9 weeks and had experienced a mean increase in body weight of 16.1% ± 12.3% on aripiprazole before switching.

Patients who were taking 2 mg-10 mg of aripiprazole were switched to 1.5 mg of cariprazine, while those taking ≥ 15 mg of aripiprazole were switched to 3 mg of cariprazine.

“Patients tolerated the switch well and maintained stability during the transition,” and “no patients discontinued cariprazine during the study,” Dr. Price said.

After a mean duration of 36.7 weeks (range, 1-127 weeks), the patients showed a decrease in Clinical Global Impression-Bipolar Severity of Illness Scale score from a mean of 5.0 ± 0.9 to a mean of 2.8 ± 0.7 (t = −12.75, P < .00001).

The patients’ weight dropped from a mean of 90.3± 21.5 kg on aripiprazole to a mean of 83.9 ± 19.2 kg on cariprazine (t = −4.22, P < .001).

Two patients experienced initial nausea that resolved by taking the medication with food, and two experienced initial restlessness that resolved with dosage reduction.

“We found that the patients were lighter in mood, body habitus and weight, and less agitated and their mental alertness and concentration improved as well,” said Dr. Price. He hopes that further research in randomized blinded trials will corroborate the findings.
 

Hypothesis-Generating Research

Joseph Cerimele, MD, MPH, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of Washington, Division of Population Health, UW Medicine, Seattle, Washington, said the research findings are “hypothesis-generating.”

Dr. Ciremele, who wasn’t involved with either study, said many clinicians and researchers are trying to tailor treatment options to match patient characteristics, and these studies and other similar research, “help us all ask questions related to concurrent symptoms in bipolar depression.”

However, the post hoc analysis was a secondary analysis of an efficacy trial where individuals with concurrent anxiety disorders were excluded. “So, a next step might be to evaluate this and other treatments in individuals with BPD and concurrent anxiety disorders,” he said.

The study by Jain et al was funded by AbbVie. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies, NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. Dr. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. His coauthors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Mr. Price and Dr. Cerimele reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Iloperidone, a second-generation antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, appears to be safe and effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, new research suggested.

Results of the phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial show patients with bipolar mania who received iloperidone had significantly greater change from baseline to 4 weeks on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) compared with placebo, an improvement detected as early as 14 days from the initial dose.

The incidence of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was low in the treatment group, and the medication was well-tolerated.

“This study provides evidence that iloperidone improves the symptoms of bipolar mania in adults and can be a useful treatment option for people with bipolar disorder,” the investigators, led by Rosarelis Torres, PhD, of Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Early Improvement

Iloperidone was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2009 for treatment of schizophrenia.

The current study included 414 participants (mean age, 43 years; 56% male) across 17 US and international sites. Patients with psychotic features received a fixed daily dose of 24 mg of iloperidone (n = 206) or placebo (n = 208).

Participants completed a screening period of up to 7 days before randomization, followed by a 1-day baseline evaluation period and a 28-day treatment phase.

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 4 on the YMRS (vs placebo), while secondary efficacy endpoints included change from baseline on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Clinical Global Impression of Change scales (CGI-S and CGI-C, respectively).

Compared with placebo, iloperidone was associated with significant improvement of mania symptoms at week 4, with a mean reduction on the YMRS scale of −4.0 (P = .000008), and significant decreases on the CGI-S (mean, −0.4; P = .0005) and CGI-C scales (mean, −0.5; P = .0002).

Statistically significant differences between iloperidone and placebo were observed as early as day 14 and continued through days 21 and 28.

Post hoc analyses found no difference in efficacy even when patients who had received benzodiazepines were excluded, regardless of the presence or absence of psychotic features at baseline.
 

Favorable Akathisia Profile

As for safety, 68% of patients in the iloperidone group experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 49% of patients in the placebo group.

Patients in the treatment group had a higher rate of withdrawal from the study than those in the placebo group (32.9% vs 27.1%), and more patients in the iloperidone group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to study drug discontinuation (8.7% vs 5.3%). However, no TEAEs associated with discontinuation occurred in more than two patients in either group, and none of the participants experienced any AE leading to death.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were tachycardia (18%), dizziness (11%), dry mouth (9%), increased alanine aminotransferase (7%), nasal congestion (6%), weight gain (6%), and somnolence (5%).

Five serious AEs were reported in four participants in the treatment group and one in the placebo group. Two were identified as related to the study medication. These included sedation and spontaneous penile erection.

Changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters were not largely different between the groups, but there were post-randomization changes in QT interval in three iloperidone patients. The incidence of orthostatic response was also higher for iloperidone vs placebo.

Although “much improved compared to early antipsychotics, SGAs can still cause considerable adverse motor side effects,” the authors wrote. “However, among all SGAs, iloperidone’s akathisia profile is favorable.”

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia has been reported more frequently in patients with bipolar disorder than in those with schizophrenia treated with the same medication, investigators noted.

One study limitation is the fact that long-term efficacy in the prevention of manic or depressive episodes was not assessed.
 

Potential Second-Line Treatment

Commenting on the study, Richard Louis Price, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said the findings suggest iloperidone may be “modestly effective” for patients with bipolar 1 mania or mixed episodes.

“It’s helpful to have new treatment options, especially for patients who have difficulty tolerating other agents,” said Dr. Price, who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting on the research, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted iloperidone’s “interesting antipsychotic pharmacodynamic,” highlighting the drug’s high-binding affinity for serotonin 5HT_2A and dopamine D₂ and D₃ receptors, as well as the noradrenergic α₁ receptors.

The drug’s profile “suggests benefit in manic features and agitation, perhaps with a lower propensity to EPS, which is especially important in persons at higher risk, like persons living with bipolar disorder,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the study, added iloperidone could be a second-line therapy because of its tolerability profile, provided the study results can be replicated.

“When considering alternatives with similar efficacy, absence of titration (or simple titration) minimal to no weight gain, no orthostatic hypotension, and no potential concerns with QT, those alternatives would have to be considered first-line, assuming that the study results are replicated,” he said.

This study was funded by Vanda Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine Biosciences, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc., NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Iloperidone, a second-generation antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, appears to be safe and effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, new research suggested.

Results of the phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial show patients with bipolar mania who received iloperidone had significantly greater change from baseline to 4 weeks on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) compared with placebo, an improvement detected as early as 14 days from the initial dose.

The incidence of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was low in the treatment group, and the medication was well-tolerated.

“This study provides evidence that iloperidone improves the symptoms of bipolar mania in adults and can be a useful treatment option for people with bipolar disorder,” the investigators, led by Rosarelis Torres, PhD, of Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Early Improvement

Iloperidone was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2009 for treatment of schizophrenia.

The current study included 414 participants (mean age, 43 years; 56% male) across 17 US and international sites. Patients with psychotic features received a fixed daily dose of 24 mg of iloperidone (n = 206) or placebo (n = 208).

Participants completed a screening period of up to 7 days before randomization, followed by a 1-day baseline evaluation period and a 28-day treatment phase.

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 4 on the YMRS (vs placebo), while secondary efficacy endpoints included change from baseline on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Clinical Global Impression of Change scales (CGI-S and CGI-C, respectively).

Compared with placebo, iloperidone was associated with significant improvement of mania symptoms at week 4, with a mean reduction on the YMRS scale of −4.0 (P = .000008), and significant decreases on the CGI-S (mean, −0.4; P = .0005) and CGI-C scales (mean, −0.5; P = .0002).

Statistically significant differences between iloperidone and placebo were observed as early as day 14 and continued through days 21 and 28.

Post hoc analyses found no difference in efficacy even when patients who had received benzodiazepines were excluded, regardless of the presence or absence of psychotic features at baseline.
 

Favorable Akathisia Profile

As for safety, 68% of patients in the iloperidone group experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 49% of patients in the placebo group.

Patients in the treatment group had a higher rate of withdrawal from the study than those in the placebo group (32.9% vs 27.1%), and more patients in the iloperidone group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to study drug discontinuation (8.7% vs 5.3%). However, no TEAEs associated with discontinuation occurred in more than two patients in either group, and none of the participants experienced any AE leading to death.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were tachycardia (18%), dizziness (11%), dry mouth (9%), increased alanine aminotransferase (7%), nasal congestion (6%), weight gain (6%), and somnolence (5%).

Five serious AEs were reported in four participants in the treatment group and one in the placebo group. Two were identified as related to the study medication. These included sedation and spontaneous penile erection.

Changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters were not largely different between the groups, but there were post-randomization changes in QT interval in three iloperidone patients. The incidence of orthostatic response was also higher for iloperidone vs placebo.

Although “much improved compared to early antipsychotics, SGAs can still cause considerable adverse motor side effects,” the authors wrote. “However, among all SGAs, iloperidone’s akathisia profile is favorable.”

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia has been reported more frequently in patients with bipolar disorder than in those with schizophrenia treated with the same medication, investigators noted.

One study limitation is the fact that long-term efficacy in the prevention of manic or depressive episodes was not assessed.
 

Potential Second-Line Treatment

Commenting on the study, Richard Louis Price, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said the findings suggest iloperidone may be “modestly effective” for patients with bipolar 1 mania or mixed episodes.

“It’s helpful to have new treatment options, especially for patients who have difficulty tolerating other agents,” said Dr. Price, who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting on the research, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted iloperidone’s “interesting antipsychotic pharmacodynamic,” highlighting the drug’s high-binding affinity for serotonin 5HT_2A and dopamine D₂ and D₃ receptors, as well as the noradrenergic α₁ receptors.

The drug’s profile “suggests benefit in manic features and agitation, perhaps with a lower propensity to EPS, which is especially important in persons at higher risk, like persons living with bipolar disorder,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the study, added iloperidone could be a second-line therapy because of its tolerability profile, provided the study results can be replicated.

“When considering alternatives with similar efficacy, absence of titration (or simple titration) minimal to no weight gain, no orthostatic hypotension, and no potential concerns with QT, those alternatives would have to be considered first-line, assuming that the study results are replicated,” he said.

This study was funded by Vanda Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine Biosciences, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc., NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Iloperidone, a second-generation antipsychotic used to treat schizophrenia, appears to be safe and effective in the treatment of bipolar mania, new research suggested.

Results of the phase 3 randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial show patients with bipolar mania who received iloperidone had significantly greater change from baseline to 4 weeks on the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) compared with placebo, an improvement detected as early as 14 days from the initial dose.

The incidence of akathisia and extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) was low in the treatment group, and the medication was well-tolerated.

“This study provides evidence that iloperidone improves the symptoms of bipolar mania in adults and can be a useful treatment option for people with bipolar disorder,” the investigators, led by Rosarelis Torres, PhD, of Vanda Pharmaceuticals, and colleagues wrote.

The study was published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
 

Early Improvement

Iloperidone was first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2009 for treatment of schizophrenia.

The current study included 414 participants (mean age, 43 years; 56% male) across 17 US and international sites. Patients with psychotic features received a fixed daily dose of 24 mg of iloperidone (n = 206) or placebo (n = 208).

Participants completed a screening period of up to 7 days before randomization, followed by a 1-day baseline evaluation period and a 28-day treatment phase.

The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 4 on the YMRS (vs placebo), while secondary efficacy endpoints included change from baseline on the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and Clinical Global Impression of Change scales (CGI-S and CGI-C, respectively).

Compared with placebo, iloperidone was associated with significant improvement of mania symptoms at week 4, with a mean reduction on the YMRS scale of −4.0 (P = .000008), and significant decreases on the CGI-S (mean, −0.4; P = .0005) and CGI-C scales (mean, −0.5; P = .0002).

Statistically significant differences between iloperidone and placebo were observed as early as day 14 and continued through days 21 and 28.

Post hoc analyses found no difference in efficacy even when patients who had received benzodiazepines were excluded, regardless of the presence or absence of psychotic features at baseline.
 

Favorable Akathisia Profile

As for safety, 68% of patients in the iloperidone group experienced at least one adverse event, compared with 49% of patients in the placebo group.

Patients in the treatment group had a higher rate of withdrawal from the study than those in the placebo group (32.9% vs 27.1%), and more patients in the iloperidone group experienced treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) leading to study drug discontinuation (8.7% vs 5.3%). However, no TEAEs associated with discontinuation occurred in more than two patients in either group, and none of the participants experienced any AE leading to death.

The most common adverse events (AEs) were tachycardia (18%), dizziness (11%), dry mouth (9%), increased alanine aminotransferase (7%), nasal congestion (6%), weight gain (6%), and somnolence (5%).

Five serious AEs were reported in four participants in the treatment group and one in the placebo group. Two were identified as related to the study medication. These included sedation and spontaneous penile erection.

Changes from baseline in clinical laboratory parameters were not largely different between the groups, but there were post-randomization changes in QT interval in three iloperidone patients. The incidence of orthostatic response was also higher for iloperidone vs placebo.

Although “much improved compared to early antipsychotics, SGAs can still cause considerable adverse motor side effects,” the authors wrote. “However, among all SGAs, iloperidone’s akathisia profile is favorable.”

Antipsychotic-induced akathisia has been reported more frequently in patients with bipolar disorder than in those with schizophrenia treated with the same medication, investigators noted.

One study limitation is the fact that long-term efficacy in the prevention of manic or depressive episodes was not assessed.
 

Potential Second-Line Treatment

Commenting on the study, Richard Louis Price, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry, at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, said the findings suggest iloperidone may be “modestly effective” for patients with bipolar 1 mania or mixed episodes.

“It’s helpful to have new treatment options, especially for patients who have difficulty tolerating other agents,” said Dr. Price, who was not involved with the study.

Also commenting on the research, Roger S. McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, noted iloperidone’s “interesting antipsychotic pharmacodynamic,” highlighting the drug’s high-binding affinity for serotonin 5HT_2A and dopamine D₂ and D₃ receptors, as well as the noradrenergic α₁ receptors.

The drug’s profile “suggests benefit in manic features and agitation, perhaps with a lower propensity to EPS, which is especially important in persons at higher risk, like persons living with bipolar disorder,” Dr. McIntyre said.

Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the study, added iloperidone could be a second-line therapy because of its tolerability profile, provided the study results can be replicated.

“When considering alternatives with similar efficacy, absence of titration (or simple titration) minimal to no weight gain, no orthostatic hypotension, and no potential concerns with QT, those alternatives would have to be considered first-line, assuming that the study results are replicated,” he said.

This study was funded by Vanda Pharmaceuticals. The authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper. Dr. McIntyre had received research grant support from CIHR/GACD/National Natural Science Foundation of China and the Milken Institute; speaker/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Alkermes, Neumora Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Sage, Biogen, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, Neurocrine Biosciences, Sunovion, Bausch Health, Axsome Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Kris, Sanofi, Eisai, Intra-Cellular Therapies Inc., NewBridge Pharmaceuticals, Viatris, Abbvie, and Atai Life Sciences. McIntyre is the CEO of Braxia Scientific Corp. Dr. Price had received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Allergan, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One dose of synthetic psilocybin in combination with psychotherapy significantly reduces treatment-resistant depression associated with bipolar II disorder (BDII), a small, nonrandomized clinical trial shows. However, the investigators and other outside experts warn these results should not be overinterpreted.

Three weeks after receiving psilocybin and psychotherapy, all 15 participants’ depression scores dropped by an average of 24 points. Twelve met criteria for response and 11 for remission.

This benefit lasted until the 12-week mark, with 12 participants (80%) meeting criteria for both response and remission. There were no reports of mixed or manic symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or suicidal ideation.

Given the study’s small, open-label design, the findings should be interpreted cautiously, but the investigators say the results are promising.

“The results we saw from this trial are encouraging and further support the clinical study of psychedelics in patients with treatment-resistant bipolar II,” lead investigator Scott T. Aaronson, MD, chief science officer of the Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics at Sheppard Pratt Health System in Baltimore, Maryland, remarked in a press release. “One participant compared the transformation she experienced to taking a deep breath after breathing through a straw for years.”

The findings were published online on December 6, 2023, in JAMA Psychiatry.

Underserved Population

Previous studies show that psilocybin is effective in reducing the symptoms of treatment-resistant depression, major depressive disorder, and anorexia nervosa, most with only mild to moderate adverse effects.

Individuals with bipolar disorder (BPD) have been excluded from psilocybin studies in the last two decades. Investigators attribute this to anecdotal evidence that psychedelics may result in manic episodes in patients with BPD, even though empirical evidence of those effects is limited.

This study included 15 participants (9 female; mean age, 37.8 years) with BDII who had experienced an episode for more than 3 months and failed at least two medications within the current episode.

Participants stopped all psychotropic medications at least 2 weeks prior to the trial and received 25 mg of synthetic COMP360 psilocybin in a controlled setting. Psychotherapy included three sessions before dosing, one during the 8-hour dosing day, and three integration sessions posttreatment.

Depression was measured with the Montgomery Ǻsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at six points during the 12-week study.

By week 3, all 15 participants had lower MADRS scores, with a mean decrease of 24 points (P < .001). Twelve participants met the response criteria of ≥ 50% reduction in MADRS scores, and 11 met the criteria for remission of a MADRS score of ≤ 10 (both P < .001).

MADRS scores at each posttreatment time point were significantly lower than they were at baseline and the improvement persisted at 12 weeks.

Participants were also monitored for mania and suicidality at various time points during the study, and no significant changes were found from baseline.

“As a first open-label foray into this underserved and treatment-resistant population, care should be taken not to overinterpret the findings,” the authors note, adding that the findings may not apply to patients with BDI or BDII in a mixed or hypomanic phase of their illness.

No Definitive Conclusion

In an accompanying editorial, David B. Yaden, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and colleagues write that the findings are “tantalizingly suggestive,” but ultimately say nothing definitive about the efficacy of psilocybin for BDII.

“The danger is that some individuals will see the large (yet uncontrolled) effect size and believe that a new treatment of bipolar II has been discovered that is substantially better than all other treatments, while neglecting to mention the lack of control condition and substantial psychosocial support included in the study,” Dr. Yaden and colleagues wrote.

They also cautioned that due to the study’s limitations, which include its small sample size and lack of a control group, “it is imperative that the large effect size before to after the study is not overinterpreted.”

However, Dr. Yaden and colleagues also characterized the safety data as “compelling,” noting the safety profile could affect exclusion criteria in future studies involving people with BPD.

“The results of the present study provide preliminary evidence that perhaps those with bipolar II can be safely included in study samples without undue risk of triggering hypomanic episodes,” they wrote. “It also suggests re-evaluation of the need to exclude individuals with mere family history of bipolar II, which several studies do.”

The study was funded by COMPASS Pathways, who provided the study drug. Dr. Aaronson reported grants and nonfinancial support (supply of drug) from COMPASS Pathways during the conduct of the study and personal fees from LivaNova, Neuronetics, Genomind, and Sage Therapeutics outside the submitted work. Other disclosures are noted in the original article.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

Cohen_Lee_S_BOSTON_web.jpg

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

Cohen_Lee_S_BOSTON_web.jpg

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

For the last 30 years, the Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) has had as part of its mission, the conveying of accurate information about the reproductive safety of psychiatric medications. There has been a spectrum of medicines developed across psychiatric indications over the last several decades, and many studies over those decades have attempted to delineate the reproductive safety of these agents.

With the development of new antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics has come an appreciation of the utility of these agents across a wide range of psychiatric disease states and psychiatric symptoms. More and more data demonstrate the efficacy of these medicines for mood and anxiety disorders; these agents are also used for a broad array of symptoms from insomnia, irritability, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) just as examples — even absent formal approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for these specific indications. With the growing use of medicines, including new antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and second-generation atypical antipsychotics, there has been a greater interest and appreciation of the need to provide women with the best information about reproductive safety of these medicines as well.

Cohen_Lee_S_BOSTON_web.jpg

When I began working in reproductive psychiatry, the FDA was using the pregnancy labeling categories introduced in 1979. The categories were simple, but also oversimplified in terms of incompletely conveying information about reproductive safety. For instance, category labels of B and C under the old labeling system could be nebulous, containing sparse information (in the case of category B) or animal data and some conflicting human data (in the case of category C) that may not have translated into relevant or easily interpretable safety information for patients and clinicians.

It was on that basis the current Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling (PLLR) Final Rule was published in 2014, which was a shift from categorical labeling to more descriptive labeling, including updated actual information on the package insert about available reproductive safety data, animal data, and data on lactation.

Even following the publication of the PLLR, there has still been an acknowledgment in the field that our assessment tools for postmarketing reproductive safety surveillance are incomplete. A recent 2-day FDA workshop hosted by the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy on optimizing the use of postapproval pregnancy safety studies sought to discuss the many questions that still surround this issue. Based on presentations at this workshop, a framework emerged for the future of assessing the reproductive safety of medications, which included an effort to develop the most effective model using tools such as pregnancy registries and harnessing “big data,” whether through electronic health records or large administrative databases from public and private insurers. Together, these various sources of information can provide signals of potential concern, prompting the need for a more rigorous look at the reproductive safety of a medication, or provide reassurance if data fail to indicate the absence of a signal of risk.

FDA’s new commitments under the latest reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VII) include pregnancy-specific postmarketing safety requirements as well as the creation of a framework for how data from pregnancy-specific postmarketing studies can be used. The agency is also conducting demonstration projects, including one for assessing the performance of pregnancy registries for the potential to detect safety signals for medications early in pregnancy. FDA is expanding its Sentinel Initiative to help accomplish these aims, and is implementing an Active Risk Identification and Analysis (ARIA) system to conduct active safety surveillance of medications used during pregnancy.

Pregnancy registries have now been available for decades, and some have been more successful than others across different classes of medicines, with the most rigorous registries including prospective follow-up of women across pregnancies and careful documentation of malformations (at best with original source data and with a blinded dysmorphologist). Still, with all of its rigor, even the best-intentioned efforts with respect to pregnancy registries have limitations. As I mentioned in my testimony during the public comment portion of the workshop, the sheer volume of pregnancy data from administrative databases we now have access to is attractive, but the quality of these data needs to be good enough to ascertain a signal of risk if they are to be used as a basis for reproductive safety determination.

The flip side of using data from large administrative databases is using carefully collected data from pregnancy registries. With a pregnancy registry, accrual of a substantial number of participants can also take a considerable period of time, and initial risk estimates of outcomes can have typically large confidence intervals, which can make it difficult to discern whether a drug is safe for women of reproductive age.

Another key issue is a lack of participation from manufacturers with respect to commitment to collection of high-quality reproductive safety data. History has shown that many medication manufacturers, unless required to have a dedicated registry as part of a postmarketing requirement or commitment, will invest sparse resources to track data on safety of fetal drug exposure. Participation is typically voluntary and varies from company to company unless, as noted previously, there is a postmarketing requirement or commitment tied to the approval of a medication. Just as a recent concrete example, the manufacturer of a new medication recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of postpartum depression (which will include presumably sexually active women well into the first postpartum year) has no plan to support the collection of reproductive safety data on this new medication because it is not required to, based on current FDA guidelines and the absence of a postmarketing requirement to do so.
 

Looking ahead

While the PLLR was a huge step forward in the field from the old pregnancy category system that could misinform women contemplating pregnancy, it also sets the stage for the next iteration of a system that allows us to generate information more quickly about the reproductive safety of medications. In psychiatry, as many as 10% of women use SSRIs during pregnancy. With drugs like atypical antipsychotics being used across disease states — in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression, anxiety, insomnia, and PTSD — and where new classes of medicine are becoming available, like with ketamine or steroids, we need to have a system by which we can more quickly ascertain reproductive safety information. This information informs treatment decisions during a critical life event of deciding to try to become pregnant or during an actual pregnancy.

In my mind, it is reassuring when a registry has even as few as 50-60 cases of fetal exposure without an increase in the risk for malformation, because it can mean we are not seeing a repeat of the past with medications like thalidomide and sodium valproate. However, patients and clinicians are starved for better data. Risk assessment is also different from clinician to clinician and patient to patient. We want to empower patients to make decisions that work for them based on more rapidly accumulating information and help inform their decisions.

To come out on the “other side” of the PLLR, we will need to find a way to accelerate our ability to identify signals of risk or information that is reassuring (or not reassuring) so that clinicians and patients are not left waiting for the next paper to come out, which can be confusing when study results frequently conflict. I believe we have an obligation today to do this better, because the areas of reproductive toxicology and pharmacovigilance are growing incredibly quickly, and clinicians and patients are seeing these volumes of data being published without the ability to integrate that information in a systematic way.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at obnews@mdedge.com.

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

CP02212e16_t1.png

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

CP02212e16_f1.png

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

CP02212e16_f2.png

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

[embed:render:related:node:240620]

[embed:render:related:node:262580]

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

CP02212e16_t1.png

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

CP02212e16_f1.png

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

CP02212e16_f2.png

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

[embed:render:related:node:240620]

[embed:render:related:node:262580]

Difficult ethical situations can arise when treating perinatal women who have serious mental illness (SMI). Clinicians must consider ethical issues related to administering antipsychotic medications, the safety of breastfeeding, and concerns for child welfare. They need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of each decision when treating perinatal women who have SMI. Ethical guidelines can help clinicians best support families in these situations.

In this article, we describe 2 cases of women with psychotic disorders who requested to breastfeed after delivering their child during an inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. The course of their hospitalizations illustrated common ethical questions and facilitated the creation of a framework to assist with complex decision-making regarding breastfeeding on inpatient psychiatric units.

CASE 1

Ms. C, age 41, is multigravida with a psychiatric history of chronic, severe schizoaffective disorder and lives in supportive housing. When Ms. C presents to the hospital in search of a rape kit, clinicians discover she is 22 weeks pregnant but has not received any prenatal care. Psychiatry is consulted because she is found to be intermittently agitated and endorses grandiose delusions. Ms. C requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis because she refuses prenatal and psychiatric care. Because it has reassuring reproductive safety data,¹ olanzapine 5 mg/d is started. However, Ms. C experiences minimal improvement from a maximum dose of 20 mg/d. After 13 weeks on the psychiatry unit, she is transferred to obstetrics service for preeclampsia with severe features. Ms. C requires an urgent cesarean delivery at 37 weeks. Her baby boy is transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for transient tachypnea. After delivery and in consultation with psychiatry, the pediatrics team calls Child Protective Services (CPS) due to concern for neglect driven by Ms. C’s psychiatric condition. Ms. C visits the child with medical unit staff supervision in the NICU without consulting with the psychiatry service or CPS. On postpartum Day 2, Ms. C is transferred back to psychiatry for persistent psychosis.

On postpartum Day 3, Ms. C starts to produce breastmilk and requests to breastfeed. At this time, the multidisciplinary team determines she is not able to visit her child in the NICU due to psychiatric instability. No plan is developed to facilitate hand expression or pumping of breastmilk while Ms. C is on the psychiatric unit. The clinical teams discuss whether the benefits of breastfeeding and/or pumping breastmilk would outweigh the risks. CPS determines that Ms. C is unable to retain custody and places the child in kinship foster care while awaiting clinical improvement from her.

CASE 2

Ms. S, age 32, has a history of schizophrenia. She lives with her husband and parents. She is pregnant for the first time and has been receiving consistent prenatal care. Ms. S is brought to the hospital by her husband for bizarre behavior and paranoia after self-discontinuing risperidone 2 mg twice daily due to concern about the medication’s influence on her pregnancy. An ultrasound confirms she is 37 weeks pregnant. Psychiatry is consulted because Ms. S is internally preoccupied, delusional, and endorses auditory hallucinations. She requires involuntary hospitalization for decompensated psychosis. During admission, Ms. S experiences improvement of her psychiatric symptoms while receiving risperidone 2 mg twice daily, which she takes consistently after receiving extensive psychoeducation regarding its safety profile during pregnancy and lactation.

After 2 weeks on the psychiatry unit, Ms. S’s care team transfers her to the obstetrics service with one-to-one supervision. At 39 weeks gestation, she has a vaginal delivery without complications. Because there are no concerns about infant harm, obstetrics, pediatrics, and psychiatry coordinate care so the baby can room in with Ms. S, her husband, and a staff supervisor to facilitate bonding. Ms. S starts to lactate, wishes to breastfeed, and meets with lactation, pediatric, obstetric, and psychiatric specialists to discuss the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. She pursues direct breastfeeding until the baby is discharged home with the husband at postpartum Day 2. CPS is not called because there are no concerns for parental abuse or neglect at the infant’s discharge.

On postpartum Day 2, the obstetrics service transfers Ms. S back to the psychiatric unit for further treatment of her paranoia. She wishes to pump breastmilk while hospitalized, so the treatment team supplies a breast pump, facilitates the storage of breastmilk, and coordinates supervision during pumping to reduce the ligature risk. Ms. S’s husband visits daily to transport the milk and feed the infant breastmilk and formula to meet its nutritional needs. Ms. S maintains psychiatric stability while breast pumping, and the team helps transition her to breastfeeding during visitation with her husband and infant until she is discharged home at 2 weeks postpartum.

Continue to: Approaching care with a relational ethics framework

A relational ethics framework was constructed to evaluate whether to support breastfeeding for both patients during their psychiatric hospitalizations. A relational ethics perspective is defined as “a moral responsibility within a context of human relations” [that] “recognizes the human interdependency and reciprocity within which personal autonomy is embedded.”² This framework values connectedness and commonality between various and even conflicting parties. In the setting of a clinician-patient relationship, health care decisions are made with consideration of the patient’s traditional beliefs, values, and principles rather than the application of impartial moral principles. For these complex cases, this framework was chosen to determine the safest possible outcome for both mother and child.

Risks/benefits of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI

There are several methods of breastfeeding, including direct breastfeeding and other ways of expressing breastmilk such as pumping or hand expression.³ Unlike other forms of feeding using breastmilk, direct breastfeeding has been extensively studied, has well-established medical and psychological benefits for newborns and mothers, and enhances long-term bonding.⁴ Compared with their counterparts who do not breastfeed, mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of unintended pregnancy, cardiovascular disease, postpartum bleeding, osteoporosis, and breast and ovarian cancer.⁵ Among its key psychological benefits, breastfeeding is associated with an increase in maternal self-efficacy and, in some research, has been shown to be associated with a decreased risk of postpartum depression and stress.Additionally, breastfed infants experience lower rates of childhood infection and obesity, and improved nutrition, cognitive development, and immune function.⁶ The American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes these benefits and recommends that women exclusively breastfeed for 6 months postpartum and continue to breastfeed for 2 years or beyond if mutually desired by the mother and child.⁷ Absolute contraindications to breastfeeding must be ruled out (eg, infant classic galactosemia; maternal use of illicit substances such as cocaine, opioids, or phencyclidine; maternal HIV infection, etc).

The risks of breastfeeding by patients who have SMI must also be considered. In severe situations, the infant can be exposed to a mother’s agitation secondary to psychosis.^8,9 The transmission of antipsychotic medication through breastmilk and associated adverse effects (eg, sedation, poor feeding, and extrapyramidal symptoms) are also potential risks and varies among different antipsychotic medications.^1,10 Therefore, when prescribing an antipsychotic for a patient with SMI who breastfeeds, it is crucial to consider the medication’s safety profile as well as other factors, such as the relative infant dose (the weight-adjusted [ie, mg/kg] percentage of the maternal dosage ingested by a fully breastfed infant) and the molecular characteristics of the medication.^10-12 Neonates should be routinely monitored for adverse effects, medication toxicity, and withdrawal symptoms, and care should be coordinated with the infant’s pediatrician. Certain antipsychotic medications, such as aripiprazole, may impact breastmilk production through the dopamine agonist’s interference of the prolactin reflex and anticholinergic properties.^11,13 For a patient with SMI, perhaps the most significant risk involves the time and resources needed for breastfeeding, which can interfere with sleep and psychiatric treatment and possibly further exacerbate psychiatric symptoms.^14-16 Additionally, breastfeeding difficulties or disruption can increase the risk of psychiatric symptoms and psychological distress.¹⁷ In Ms. C’s case, there was a delay in the baby latching as well as multiple medical and psychiatric factors that hindered the milk-ejection reflex to properly initiate; both of these factors rendered breastfeeding particularly difficult while Ms. C was on the inpatient psychiatry unit.¹⁷ In comparison, Ms. S was able to bond with her infant shortly after delivery, which facilitated the milk-ejection reflex and lactation.

Patients who wish to directly breastfeed but struggle to do so while tending to their acute psychiatric condition can benefit from expression of breastmilk that can be provided to the infant or discarded to facilitate breastfeeding in the future.¹⁸ While expression of breastmilk may not be as advantageous for infant health as direct breastfeeding due to the potential changes in breastmilk composition from collecting, storing, and heating, this option can be more protective than formula feeding and facilitate future breastfeeding.¹⁹ In these clinical scenarios, it is standard care to provide a hospital-grade breast pump to the patient, much like a continuous positive airway pressure machine is provided to patients with obstructive sleep apnea.²⁰ However, there is often considerable difficulty obtaining proper breastfeeding equipment and a lack of services devoted to perinatal care in general inpatient settings. Barriers to direct breastfeeding and pumping of breastmilk are highlighted in the Table.²¹

CP02212e16_t1.png

Limitations on breastfeeding on an inpatient unit

The limitations in care and restrictions placed on breastfeeding are more optimally addressed in a mother and baby unit (MBU). MBUs are specialized inpatient psychiatric units designed for mothers experiencing severe perinatal psychiatric difficulties. Unlike general psychiatric units, MBUs allow for joint, full-time admission of mothers and their infants. These units also include multidisciplinary staff who specialize in treating perinatal mental health issues as well as infant care and child development.²² Admission into an MBU is considered best practice for new mothers requiring treatment, particularly in the United Kingdom, Australia, and France, as it is well-recognized that the separation of mother and baby can be psychologically harmful.²³ In the UK, most patients admitted to an MBU showed significant improvement of their psychiatric symptoms and reported overall high satisfaction with care.^24,25 Patients who experience postpartum psychosis prefer MBUs over general psychiatric units because the latter often lack specialized perinatal support, appropriate visitor arrangements, and adequate time with their infant.^26-28

Continue to: The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States...

The resistance to adopting MBUs in the United States has posed significant barriers in care for perinatal patients and has been attributed to financial barriers, medicolegal risk, staffing, and safety concerns.²⁹ Though currently there are no MBUs in the US, other specialized units have been created. A partial day hospitalization program created in 2000 in Rhode Island for mothers and infants revolutionized the psychiatric care experience for new mothers.³⁰ Since then, other institutions have significantly expanded their services to include perinatal psychiatry inpatient units, yet unlike MBUs, these units typically do not provide overnight rooming-in with infants.³¹ They have the necessary resources and facilities to accommodate the mother’s needs and maximize positive mother-infant interaction, while actively integrating the infant into the mother’s treatment. Breast pumping is treated as a necessary medical procedure and patients can easily access hospital-grade breast pumps with staff supervision. At one such perinatal psychiatric inpatient unit, high rates of treatment satisfaction and significant improvements in symptoms of depression, anxiety, active suicidal ideation, and overall functioning were observed at discharge.³² Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate strategies in general psychiatry units to improve perinatal care, acknowledging that most patients will not have access to these specialized units.²¹

A framework to approaching the relational ethics decisions

An interdisciplinary team used a relational ethics perspective to carefully analyze the risks and benefits of these complex cases. In Figure 1, we propose a framework for the relational ethics decisions of breastfeeding on general inpatient psychiatric units. In creating this framework, we considered principles of autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence, along with the medical and logistical barriers to breastfeeding.

CP02212e16_f1.png

In Ms. C’s case, the team determined that the risks—which included disrupting the mother’s psychiatric treatment, exposing her to psychological harm due to increasing attachment before remanding the child to CPS custody, and risks to the child due to potential unpredictable agitation driven by the treatment-refractory psychosis of the mother as well as that of other psychiatric patients—outweighed the benefits of breastfeeding. We instead recommended breast pumping as an alternative once Ms. C’s psychiatric stability improved. We presented Ms. C with the option of breast pumping on postpartum Day 5. During a 1-day period in which she showed improved behavioral control, she was counseled on the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and exclusive pumping and was notified that the team would help her with the necessary resources, including consultation with a lactation specialist and breast pump. Despite lactation consultant support, Ms. C had low milk production and difficulty with hand expression, which was very discouraging to her. She produced 1 ounce of milk that was shared with the newborn while in the NICU. Because Ms. C’s psychiatric symptoms continued to be severe, with lability and aggression, and because pumping was triggering distress, the multidisciplinary team determined the best course of care would be to focus on her psychiatric recovery rather than on pumping breastmilk. To reduce milk production and minimize discomfort secondary to breast engorgement, the lactation consultant recommended cold compresses, pain management, and compression of breasts. Ultimately, the mother-infant dyad was unable to reap the benefits of breastfeeding (via pumping or direct breastfeeding) due to the mother’s underlying psychiatric illness, although the staffing, psychosocial support, and logistical limitations contributed to this outcome.³³

In Ms. S’s case, the treatment team determined that there were no medical or psychiatric contraindications to breastfeeding, and she was counseled on the risks and benefits of direct breastfeeding and pumping. The treatment team determined it was safe for Ms. S to directly breastfeed as there were no concerns for infant harm post­delivery with constant supervision while on the obstetrics floor. The patient opted to directly breastfeed, which was successful with the guidance of a lactation specialist. When she was transferred to the psychiatric unit on postpartum Day 2, her child was discharged home with the husband. The patient was then encouraged to pump while the psychiatrists monitored her symptoms closely and facilitated increased staff and resources. Transportation of breastmilk was made possible by the family, and on postpartum Day 5, as the patient maintained psychiatric stability, the team discussed with Ms. S and her husband the prospect of direct breastfeeding. The treatment team arranged for separate visitation hours to minimize the possibility of exposing the infant to aggression from other patients on the unit and advocated with hospital leadership to approve of infant visitation on the unit.

Impact of involvement of Child Protective Services

The involvement of CPS also added complexity to Ms. C’s case. Without proper legal guidance, mothers with psychosis who lose custody can find it difficult to navigate the legal system and maintain contact with their children.³⁴ As the prevalence of custody loss in mothers with psychosis is high (approximately 50% according to research published in the last 10 years), effective interventions to reunite the mother and child must be promoted (Figure 2).^35-39 Ultimately, the goal of psychiatric hospitalization for perinatal women who have SMI is psychiatric stabilization. The preemptive involvement of psychiatry is crucial because it can allow for early postpartum planning and can provide an opportunity to address feeding options and custody concerns with the patient, social supports and services, and various medical teams. In Ms. C’s case, she visited her baby in the NICU on postpartum Day 2 without consultation with psychiatry or CPS, which posed risks to the patient, infant, and staff. It is vital that various clinicians collaborate with each other and the patient, working towards the goal of optimizing the patient’s mental health to allow for parenting rights in the future and maximizing a sustainable attachment between the parent and child. In Ms. S’s case, the husband was able to facilitate caring for the baby while the mother was hospitalized and played an integral role in the feeding process via pumped breastmilk and transport of the infant for direct breastfeeding.

CP02212e16_f2.png

Continue to: The differences in these 2 cases...

The differences in these 2 cases show the extreme importance of social support to benefit both the mother and child, and the need for more comprehensive social services for women who do not have a social safety net.

Bottom Line

These complex cases highlight an ethical decision-making approach to breastfeeding in perinatal women who have serious mental illness. Collaborative care and shared decision-making, which highlight the interests of the mother and baby, are crucial when assessing the risks and benefits of breastfeeding and pumping breastmilk. Our relational ethics framework can be used to better evaluate and implement breastfeeding options on general psychiatric units.

Related Resources

• Tillman B, Sloan N, Westmoreland P. How COVID-19 affects peripartum women’s mental health. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(6):18-22. doi:10.12788/cp.0129
• Koch J, Preinitz J. Antidepressants for patients who are breastfeeding: what to consider. Current Psychiatry. 2023;22(5):20-23,48. doi:10.12788/cp.0355

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole • Abilify
Olanzapine • Zyprexa
Risperidone • Risperdal

[embed:render:related:node:240620]

[embed:render:related:node:262580]

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Cerfolio_Nina_E_NY_web.jpg

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Glick_Ira_D_CALIF_web.jpg

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Cerfolio_Nina_E_NY_web.jpg

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Glick_Ira_D_CALIF_web.jpg

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.

Our psychiatric research, which found a high incidence of undiagnosed mental illness in mass shooters, was recently awarded the esteemed Psychodynamic Psychiatry Journal Prize for best paper published in the last 2 years (2022-2023). The editors noted our integrity in using quantitative data to argue against the common, careless assumption that mass shooters are not mentally ill.

Some of the mass shooters we studied were motivated by religious or political ideologies that were considered forms of terrorism. Given the current tragically violent landscape both at home and in Israel/Palestine, the “desire for destruction” is vital to understand.

Although there have been a limited number of psychiatric studies of perpetrators of mass shootings, our team took the first step to lay the groundwork by conducting a systematic, quantitative study. Our psychiatric research team’s research findings were published in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and then in greater detail in Psychodynamic Psychiatry,^1,2 which provided important context to the complicated backgrounds of these mass shooters who suffer from abuse, marginalization, and severe undiagnosed brain illness.³

Cerfolio_Nina_E_NY_web.jpg

The Mother Jones database of 115 mass shootings from 1982 to 2019 was used to study retrospectively 55 shooters in the United States. We developed a uniform, comprehensive, 62-item questionnaire to compile the data collection from multiple sources and record our psychiatric assessments of the assailants, using DSM-5 criteria. After developing this detailed psychiatric assessment questionnaire, psychiatric researchers evaluated the weight and quality of clinical evidence by (1) interviewing forensic psychiatrists who had assessed the assailant following the crime, and/or (2) reviewing court records of psychiatric evaluations conducted during the postcrime judicial proceedings to determine the prevalence of psychiatric illness. Rather than accepting diagnoses from forensic psychiatrists and/or court records, our team independently reviewed the clinical data gathered from multiple sources to apply the DSM-5 criteria to diagnose mental illness.

In most incidents in the database, the perpetrator died either during or shortly after the crime. We examined every case (n=35) in which the assailant survived, and criminal proceedings were instituted.

Of the 35 cases in which the assailant survived and criminal proceedings were instituted, there was insufficient information to make a diagnosis in 3 cases. Of the remaining 32 cases in which we had sufficient information, we determined that 87.5% had the following psychiatric diagnosis: 18 assailants (56%) had schizophrenia, while 10 assailants (31%) had other psychiatric diagnoses: 3 had bipolar I disorder, 2 had delusional disorders (persecutory), 2 had personality disorders (1 paranoid, 1 borderline), 2 had substance-related disorders without other psychiatric diagnosis, and 1 had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Out of the 32 surviving assailants for whom we have sufficient evidence, 87.5% of perpetrators of mass shootings were diagnosed with major psychiatric illness, and none were treated appropriately with medication at the time of the crime. Four assailants (12.5%) had no psychiatric diagnosis that we could discern. Of the 18 surviving assailants with schizophrenia, no assailant was on antipsychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia prior to the crime. Of the 10 surviving assailants with other psychiatric illnesses, no assailant was on antipsychotic and/or appropriate medication.

In addition, we found that the clinical misdiagnosis of early-onset schizophrenia was associated with the worsening of many of these assailants’ psychotic symptoms. Many of our adolescent shooters prior to the massacre had been misdiagnosed with attention-deficit disorder (ADD), major depression disorder (MDD), or autism spectrum disorder.

Though the vast majority of those suffering from psychiatric illnesses who are appropriately treated are not violent, there is a growing body of scientific research that indicates a strong association of untreated brain illness with those who commit mass shootings.^4,5,6 This research demonstrates that such untreated illness combined with access to firearms poses a lethal threat to society.

Glick_Ira_D_CALIF_web.jpg

Most of the assailants also experienced profound estrangement, not only from families and friends, but most importantly from themselves. Being marginalized rendered them more vulnerable to their untreated psychiatric illness and to radicalization online, which fostered their violence. While there are complex reasons that a person is not diagnosed, there remains a vital need to decrease the stigma of mental illness to enable those with psychiatric illness to be more respected, less marginalized, and encouraged to receive effective psychiatric treatments.

Dr. Cerfolio is author of “Psychoanalytic and Spiritual Perspectives on Terrorism: Desire for Destruction.” She is clinical assistant professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. Dr. Glick is Professor Emeritus, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

References

1. Glick ID, et al. Domestic Mass Shooters: The Association With Unmedicated and Untreated Psychiatric Illness. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2021 Jul-Aug;41(4):366-369. doi: 10.1097/JCP.0000000000001417.

2. Cerfolio NE, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Psychosocial Determinants and Psychiatric Diagnoses of Mass Shooters in the United States. Psychodyn Psychiatry. 2022 Fall;50(3):1-16. doi: 10.1521/pdps.2022.50.5.001.

3. Cerfolio NE. The Parkland gunman, a horrific crime, and mental illness. The New York Times. 2022 Oct 14. www.nytimes.com/2022/10/14/opinion/letters/jan-6-panel-trump.html#link-5e2ccc1.

4. Corner E, et al. Mental Health Disorders and the Terrorist: A Research Note Probing Selection Effects and Disorder Prevalence. Stud Confl Terror. 2016 Jan;39(6):560–568. doi: 10.1080/1057610X.2015.1120099.

5. Gruenewald J, et al. Distinguishing “Loner” Attacks from Other Domestic Extremist Violence. Criminol Public Policy. 2013 Feb;12(1):65–91. doi: 10.1111/1745-9133.12008.

6. Lankford A. Detecting mental health problems and suicidal motives among terrorists and mass shooters. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2016 Dec;26(5):315-321. doi: 10.1002/cbm.2020.