Schizophrenia & Other Psychotic Disorders

I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.

At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.

Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.

We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.

New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.

Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”

I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
 

Barriers to care

Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.

What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”

The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.

All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.

In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.

Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.

The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.

Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
 

Multiple stakeholders

Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.

There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.

There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.

There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.

Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.

Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.

It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.

The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.

If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.

At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.

Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.

We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.

New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.

Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”

I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
 

Barriers to care

Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.

What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”

The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.

All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.

In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.

Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.

The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.

Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
 

Multiple stakeholders

Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.

There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.

There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.

There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.

Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.

Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.

It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.

The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.

If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

I met Eleanor when I was writing a book on involuntary psychiatric treatment. She was very ill when she presented to an emergency department in Northern California. She was looking for help and would have signed herself in, but after waiting 8 hours with no food or medical attention, she walked out and went to another hospital.

At this point, she was agitated and distressed and began screaming uncontrollably. The physician in the second ED did not offer her the option of signing in, and she was placed on a 72-hour hold and subsequently held in the hospital for 3 weeks after a judge committed her.

Like so many issues, involuntary psychiatric care is highly polarized. Some groups favor legislation to make involuntary treatment easier, while patient advocacy and civil rights groups vehemently oppose such legislation.

We don’t hear from these combatants as much as we hear from those who trumpet their views on abortion or gun control, yet this battlefield exists. It is not surprising that when New York City Mayor Eric Adams announced a plan to hospitalize homeless people with mental illnesses – involuntarily if necessary, and at the discretion of the police – people were outraged.

New York City is not the only place using this strategy to address the problem of mental illness and homelessness; California has enacted similar legislation, and every major city has homeless citizens.

Eleanor was not homeless, and fortunately, she recovered and returned to her family. However, she remained distressed and traumatized by her hospitalization for years. “It sticks with you,” she told me. “I would rather die than go in again.”

I wish I could tell you that Eleanor is unique in saying that she would rather die than go to a hospital unit for treatment, but it is not an uncommon sentiment for patients. Some people who are charged with crimes and end up in the judicial system will opt to go to jail rather than to a psychiatric hospital. It is also not easy to access outpatient psychiatric treatment.
 

Barriers to care

Many psychiatrists don’t participate with insurance networks, and publicly funded clinics may have long waiting lists, so illnesses escalate until there is a crisis and hospitalization is necessary. For many, stigma and fear of potential professional repercussions are significant barriers to care.

What are the issues that legislation attempts to address? The first is the standard for hospitalizing individuals against their will. In some states, the patient must be dangerous, while in others there is a lower standard of “gravely disabled,” and finally there are those that promote a standard of a “need for treatment.”

The second is related to medicating people against their will, a process that can be rightly perceived as an assault if the patient refuses to take oral medications and must be held down for injections. Next, the use of outpatient civil commitment – legally requiring people to get treatment if they are not in the hospital – has been increasingly invoked as a way to prevent mass murders and random violence against strangers.

All but four states have some legislation for outpatient commitment, euphemistically called Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), yet these laws are difficult to enforce and expensive to enact. They are also not fully effective.

In New York City, Kendra’s Law has not eliminated subway violence by people with psychiatric disturbances, and the shooter who killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Tech in 2007 had previously been ordered by a judge to go to outpatient treatment, but he simply never showed up for his appointment.

Finally, the battle includes the right of patients to refuse to have their psychiatric information released to their caretakers under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 – a measure that many families believe would help them to get loved ones to take medications and go to appointments.

The concern about how to negotiate the needs of society and the civil rights of people with psychiatric disorders has been with us for centuries. There is a strong antipsychiatry movement that asserts that psychotropic medications are ineffective or harmful and refers to patients as “psychiatric survivors.” We value the right to medical autonomy, and when there is controversy over the validity of a treatment, there is even more controversy over forcing it upon people.

Psychiatric medications are very effective and benefit many people, but they don’t help everyone, and some people experience side effects. Also, we can’t deny that involuntary care can go wrong; the conservatorship of Britney Spears for 13 years is a very public example.
 

Multiple stakeholders

Many have a stake in how this plays out. There are the patients, who may be suffering and unable to recognize that they are ill, who may have valid reasons for not wanting the treatments, and who ideally should have the right to refuse care.

There are the families who watch their loved ones suffer, deteriorate, and miss the opportunities that life has to offer; who do not want their children to be homeless or incarcerated; and who may be at risk from violent behavior.

There are the mental health professionals who want to do what’s in the best interest of their patients while following legal and ethical mandates, who worry about being sued for tragic outcomes, and who can’t meet the current demand for services.

There is the taxpayer who foots the bill for disability payments, lost productivity, and institutionalization. There is our society that worries that people with psychiatric disorders will commit random acts of violence.

Finally, there are the insurers, who want to pay for as little care as possible and throw up constant hurdles in the treatment process. We must acknowledge that resources used for involuntary treatment are diverted away from those who want care.

Eleanor had many advantages that unhoused people don’t have: a supportive family, health insurance, and the financial means to pay a psychiatrist who respected her wishes to wean off her medications. She returned to a comfortable home and to personal and occupational success.

It is tragic that we have people living on the streets because of a psychiatric disorder, addiction, poverty, or some combination of these. No one should be unhoused. If the rationale of hospitalization is to decrease violence, I am not hopeful. The Epidemiologic Catchment Area study shows that people with psychiatric disorders are responsible for only 4% of all violence.

The logistics of determining which people living on the streets have psychiatric disorders, transporting them safely to medical facilities, and then finding the resources to provide for compassionate and thoughtful care in meaningful and sustained ways are very challenging.

If we don’t want people living on the streets, we need to create supports, including infrastructure to facilitate housing, access to mental health care, and addiction treatment before we resort to involuntary hospitalization.
 

Dr. Miller is a coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2016). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. She has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Catatonia is a psychomotor syndrome identified by its clinical phenotype. Unlike common psychiatric syndromes such as major depression that are characterized by self-report of symptoms, catatonia is identified chiefly by empirically evaluated signs on clinical evaluation. Its signs are recognized through observation, physical examination, or elicitation by clinical maneuvers or the presentation of stimuli. However, catatonia is often overlooked even though its clinical signs are often visibly apparent, including to the casual observer.

Why is catatonia underdiagnosed? A key modifiable factor appears to be a prevalent misunderstanding over what catatonia looks like.¹ We have sought to address this in a few ways.

First identified was the need for comprehensive educational resources on how to assess for and recognize catatonia. Using the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale – the most widely used scale for catatonia in both research and clinical settings and the most cited publication in the catatonia literature– our team developed the BFCRS Training Manual and Coding Guide.^2,3 This manual expands on the definitions of each BFCRS item based on how it was originally operationalized by the scale’s authors. Subsequently, we created a comprehensive set of educational resources including videos illustrating how to assess for catatonia, a video for each of the 23 items on the BFCRS, and self-assessment tools. All resources are freely available online at https://bfcrs.urmc.edu.⁴

Through this project it became apparent that there are many discrepancies across the field regarding the phenotype of catatonia. Specifically, a recent review inspired by this project set about to characterize the scope of distinctions across diagnostic systems and rating scales.⁵ For instance, each diagnostic system and rating scale includes a unique set of signs, approaches diagnostic thresholds differently, and often operationalizes clinical features in ways that lead either to criterion overlap (for example, combativeness would be scored both as combativeness and agitation on ICD-11) or contradictions with other systems or scales (for example, varied definitions of waxy flexibility). In the face of so many inconsistencies, what is a clinician to do? What follows is a discussion of how to apply the insights from this recent review in clinical and research settings.

Starting with DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 – the current editions of the two leading diagnostic systems – one might ask: How do they compare?^6,7 Overall, these two systems are broadly aligned in terms of the catatonic syndrome. Both systems identify individual clinical signs (as opposed to symptom complexes). Both require three features as a diagnostic threshold. Most of the same clinical signs are included in both systems, and the definitions of individual items are largely equivalent. Additionally, both systems allow for diagnosis of catatonia in association with psychiatric and medical conditions and include a category for unspecified catatonia.

Despite these core agreements, though, there are several important distinctions. First, whereas all 12 signs included in DSM-5-TR count toward an ICD-11 catatonia diagnosis, the opposite cannot be said. ICD-11 includes several features that are not in DSM-5-TR: rigidity, verbigeration, withdrawal, staring, ambitendency, impulsivity, and combativeness. Next, autonomic abnormality, which signifies the most severe type of catatonia called malignant catatonia, is included as a potential comorbidity in ICD-11 but not mentioned in DSM-5-TR. Third, ICD-11 includes a separate diagnosis for substance-induced catatonia, whereas this condition would be diagnosed as unspecified catatonia in DSM-5-TR.

There are also elements missing from both systems. The most notable of these is that neither system specifies the period over which findings must be present for diagnosis. By clinical convention, the practical definition of 24 hours is appropriate in most instances. The clinical features identified during direct evaluation are usually sufficient for diagnosis, but additional signs observed or documented over the prior 24 hours should be incorporated as part of the clinical evaluation. Another distinction is how to handle clinical features before and after lorazepam challenge. As noted in the BFCRS Training Manual, it would be appropriate to compare “state assessments” (that is, restricted to features identified only during direct, in-person assessment) from before and after lorazepam administration to document improvement.⁴

Whereas DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 are broadly in agreement, comparing these systems with catatonia rating scales reveals many sources of potential confusion, but also concrete guidance on operationalizing individual items.⁵ How exactly should each of catatonia’s clinical signs be defined? Descriptions differ, and thresholds of duration and frequency vary considerably across scales. As a result, clinicians who use different scales and then convert these results to diagnostic criteria are liable to come to different clinical conclusions. For instance, both echophenomena and negativism must be elicited more than five times to be scored per Northoff,⁸ but even a single convincing instance of either would be scored on the BFCRS as “occasional.”²

Such discrepancies are important because, whereas the psychometric properties of several catatonia scales have been documented, there are no analogous studies on the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 criteria. Therefore, it is essential for clinicians and researchers to document how diagnostic criteria have been operationalized. The most practical and evidence-based way to do this is to use a clinically validated scale and convert these to diagnostic criteria, yet in doing so a few modifications will be necessary.

Of the available clinical scales, the BFCRS is best positioned for clinical use. The BFCRS has been validated clinically and has good reliability, detailed item definitions and audiovisual examples available. In addition, it is the only scale with a published semistructured evaluation (see initial paper and Training Manual), which takes about 5 minutes.2,4 In terms of utility, all 12 signs included by DSM-5-TR are among the first 14 items on the BFCRS, which constitutes a standalone tool known as the Bush-Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument (BFCSI, see Table).

Many fundamental questions remain about catatonia,but the importance of a shared understanding of its clinical features is clear.⁹ Catatonia should be on the differential whenever a patient exhibits a markedly altered level of activity or grossly abnormal behavior, especially when inappropriate to context. We encourage readers to familiarize themselves with the phenotype of catatonia through online educational resources⁴ because the optimal care of patients with catatonia requires – at a minimum – that we know what we’re looking for.

Dr. Oldham is assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. Dr. Francis is professor of psychiatry at Penn State University, Hershey. The authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest. Funding for the educational project hosted at https://bfcrs.urmc.edu was provided by the department of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Dr. Oldham is currently supported by a K23 career development award from the National Institute on Aging (AG072383). The educational resources referenced in this piece could not have been created were it not for the intellectual and thespian collaboration of Joshua R. Wortzel, MD, who is currently a fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Brown University, Providence, R.I. The authors are also indebted to Hochang B. Lee, MD, for his gracious support of this project.

References

1. Wortzel JR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2021 Aug 17;82(5):21m14025. doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m14025.

2. Bush G et al. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1996 Feb;93(2):129-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1996.tb09814.x.

3. Weleff J et al. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry. 2023 Jan-Feb;64(1):13-27. doi:10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.07.002.

4. Oldham MA et al. Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Assessment Resources. University of Rochester Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry. https://bfcrs.urmc.edu.

5. Oldham MA. Schizophr Res. 2022 Aug 19;S0920-9964(22)00294-8. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2022.08.002.

6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5-TR. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022.

7. World Health Organization. ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Stastistics. 2022. https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/486722075.

8. Northoff G et al. Mov Disord. May 1999;14(3):404-16. doi: 10.1002/1531-8257(199905)14:3<404::AID-MDS1004>3.0.CO;2-5.

9. Walther S et al. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Jul;6(7):610-9. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30474-7.

Catatonia is a psychomotor syndrome identified by its clinical phenotype. Unlike common psychiatric syndromes such as major depression that are characterized by self-report of symptoms, catatonia is identified chiefly by empirically evaluated signs on clinical evaluation. Its signs are recognized through observation, physical examination, or elicitation by clinical maneuvers or the presentation of stimuli. However, catatonia is often overlooked even though its clinical signs are often visibly apparent, including to the casual observer.

Why is catatonia underdiagnosed? A key modifiable factor appears to be a prevalent misunderstanding over what catatonia looks like.¹ We have sought to address this in a few ways.

First identified was the need for comprehensive educational resources on how to assess for and recognize catatonia. Using the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale – the most widely used scale for catatonia in both research and clinical settings and the most cited publication in the catatonia literature– our team developed the BFCRS Training Manual and Coding Guide.^2,3 This manual expands on the definitions of each BFCRS item based on how it was originally operationalized by the scale’s authors. Subsequently, we created a comprehensive set of educational resources including videos illustrating how to assess for catatonia, a video for each of the 23 items on the BFCRS, and self-assessment tools. All resources are freely available online at https://bfcrs.urmc.edu.⁴

Through this project it became apparent that there are many discrepancies across the field regarding the phenotype of catatonia. Specifically, a recent review inspired by this project set about to characterize the scope of distinctions across diagnostic systems and rating scales.⁵ For instance, each diagnostic system and rating scale includes a unique set of signs, approaches diagnostic thresholds differently, and often operationalizes clinical features in ways that lead either to criterion overlap (for example, combativeness would be scored both as combativeness and agitation on ICD-11) or contradictions with other systems or scales (for example, varied definitions of waxy flexibility). In the face of so many inconsistencies, what is a clinician to do? What follows is a discussion of how to apply the insights from this recent review in clinical and research settings.

Starting with DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 – the current editions of the two leading diagnostic systems – one might ask: How do they compare?^6,7 Overall, these two systems are broadly aligned in terms of the catatonic syndrome. Both systems identify individual clinical signs (as opposed to symptom complexes). Both require three features as a diagnostic threshold. Most of the same clinical signs are included in both systems, and the definitions of individual items are largely equivalent. Additionally, both systems allow for diagnosis of catatonia in association with psychiatric and medical conditions and include a category for unspecified catatonia.

Despite these core agreements, though, there are several important distinctions. First, whereas all 12 signs included in DSM-5-TR count toward an ICD-11 catatonia diagnosis, the opposite cannot be said. ICD-11 includes several features that are not in DSM-5-TR: rigidity, verbigeration, withdrawal, staring, ambitendency, impulsivity, and combativeness. Next, autonomic abnormality, which signifies the most severe type of catatonia called malignant catatonia, is included as a potential comorbidity in ICD-11 but not mentioned in DSM-5-TR. Third, ICD-11 includes a separate diagnosis for substance-induced catatonia, whereas this condition would be diagnosed as unspecified catatonia in DSM-5-TR.

There are also elements missing from both systems. The most notable of these is that neither system specifies the period over which findings must be present for diagnosis. By clinical convention, the practical definition of 24 hours is appropriate in most instances. The clinical features identified during direct evaluation are usually sufficient for diagnosis, but additional signs observed or documented over the prior 24 hours should be incorporated as part of the clinical evaluation. Another distinction is how to handle clinical features before and after lorazepam challenge. As noted in the BFCRS Training Manual, it would be appropriate to compare “state assessments” (that is, restricted to features identified only during direct, in-person assessment) from before and after lorazepam administration to document improvement.⁴

Whereas DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 are broadly in agreement, comparing these systems with catatonia rating scales reveals many sources of potential confusion, but also concrete guidance on operationalizing individual items.⁵ How exactly should each of catatonia’s clinical signs be defined? Descriptions differ, and thresholds of duration and frequency vary considerably across scales. As a result, clinicians who use different scales and then convert these results to diagnostic criteria are liable to come to different clinical conclusions. For instance, both echophenomena and negativism must be elicited more than five times to be scored per Northoff,⁸ but even a single convincing instance of either would be scored on the BFCRS as “occasional.”²

Such discrepancies are important because, whereas the psychometric properties of several catatonia scales have been documented, there are no analogous studies on the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 criteria. Therefore, it is essential for clinicians and researchers to document how diagnostic criteria have been operationalized. The most practical and evidence-based way to do this is to use a clinically validated scale and convert these to diagnostic criteria, yet in doing so a few modifications will be necessary.

Of the available clinical scales, the BFCRS is best positioned for clinical use. The BFCRS has been validated clinically and has good reliability, detailed item definitions and audiovisual examples available. In addition, it is the only scale with a published semistructured evaluation (see initial paper and Training Manual), which takes about 5 minutes.2,4 In terms of utility, all 12 signs included by DSM-5-TR are among the first 14 items on the BFCRS, which constitutes a standalone tool known as the Bush-Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument (BFCSI, see Table).

Many fundamental questions remain about catatonia,but the importance of a shared understanding of its clinical features is clear.⁹ Catatonia should be on the differential whenever a patient exhibits a markedly altered level of activity or grossly abnormal behavior, especially when inappropriate to context. We encourage readers to familiarize themselves with the phenotype of catatonia through online educational resources⁴ because the optimal care of patients with catatonia requires – at a minimum – that we know what we’re looking for.

Dr. Oldham is assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. Dr. Francis is professor of psychiatry at Penn State University, Hershey. The authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest. Funding for the educational project hosted at https://bfcrs.urmc.edu was provided by the department of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Dr. Oldham is currently supported by a K23 career development award from the National Institute on Aging (AG072383). The educational resources referenced in this piece could not have been created were it not for the intellectual and thespian collaboration of Joshua R. Wortzel, MD, who is currently a fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Brown University, Providence, R.I. The authors are also indebted to Hochang B. Lee, MD, for his gracious support of this project.

References

1. Wortzel JR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2021 Aug 17;82(5):21m14025. doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m14025.

2. Bush G et al. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1996 Feb;93(2):129-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1996.tb09814.x.

3. Weleff J et al. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry. 2023 Jan-Feb;64(1):13-27. doi:10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.07.002.

4. Oldham MA et al. Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Assessment Resources. University of Rochester Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry. https://bfcrs.urmc.edu.

5. Oldham MA. Schizophr Res. 2022 Aug 19;S0920-9964(22)00294-8. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2022.08.002.

6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5-TR. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022.

7. World Health Organization. ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Stastistics. 2022. https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/486722075.

8. Northoff G et al. Mov Disord. May 1999;14(3):404-16. doi: 10.1002/1531-8257(199905)14:3<404::AID-MDS1004>3.0.CO;2-5.

9. Walther S et al. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Jul;6(7):610-9. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30474-7.

Catatonia is a psychomotor syndrome identified by its clinical phenotype. Unlike common psychiatric syndromes such as major depression that are characterized by self-report of symptoms, catatonia is identified chiefly by empirically evaluated signs on clinical evaluation. Its signs are recognized through observation, physical examination, or elicitation by clinical maneuvers or the presentation of stimuli. However, catatonia is often overlooked even though its clinical signs are often visibly apparent, including to the casual observer.

Why is catatonia underdiagnosed? A key modifiable factor appears to be a prevalent misunderstanding over what catatonia looks like.¹ We have sought to address this in a few ways.

First identified was the need for comprehensive educational resources on how to assess for and recognize catatonia. Using the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale – the most widely used scale for catatonia in both research and clinical settings and the most cited publication in the catatonia literature– our team developed the BFCRS Training Manual and Coding Guide.^2,3 This manual expands on the definitions of each BFCRS item based on how it was originally operationalized by the scale’s authors. Subsequently, we created a comprehensive set of educational resources including videos illustrating how to assess for catatonia, a video for each of the 23 items on the BFCRS, and self-assessment tools. All resources are freely available online at https://bfcrs.urmc.edu.⁴

Through this project it became apparent that there are many discrepancies across the field regarding the phenotype of catatonia. Specifically, a recent review inspired by this project set about to characterize the scope of distinctions across diagnostic systems and rating scales.⁵ For instance, each diagnostic system and rating scale includes a unique set of signs, approaches diagnostic thresholds differently, and often operationalizes clinical features in ways that lead either to criterion overlap (for example, combativeness would be scored both as combativeness and agitation on ICD-11) or contradictions with other systems or scales (for example, varied definitions of waxy flexibility). In the face of so many inconsistencies, what is a clinician to do? What follows is a discussion of how to apply the insights from this recent review in clinical and research settings.

Starting with DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 – the current editions of the two leading diagnostic systems – one might ask: How do they compare?^6,7 Overall, these two systems are broadly aligned in terms of the catatonic syndrome. Both systems identify individual clinical signs (as opposed to symptom complexes). Both require three features as a diagnostic threshold. Most of the same clinical signs are included in both systems, and the definitions of individual items are largely equivalent. Additionally, both systems allow for diagnosis of catatonia in association with psychiatric and medical conditions and include a category for unspecified catatonia.

Despite these core agreements, though, there are several important distinctions. First, whereas all 12 signs included in DSM-5-TR count toward an ICD-11 catatonia diagnosis, the opposite cannot be said. ICD-11 includes several features that are not in DSM-5-TR: rigidity, verbigeration, withdrawal, staring, ambitendency, impulsivity, and combativeness. Next, autonomic abnormality, which signifies the most severe type of catatonia called malignant catatonia, is included as a potential comorbidity in ICD-11 but not mentioned in DSM-5-TR. Third, ICD-11 includes a separate diagnosis for substance-induced catatonia, whereas this condition would be diagnosed as unspecified catatonia in DSM-5-TR.

There are also elements missing from both systems. The most notable of these is that neither system specifies the period over which findings must be present for diagnosis. By clinical convention, the practical definition of 24 hours is appropriate in most instances. The clinical features identified during direct evaluation are usually sufficient for diagnosis, but additional signs observed or documented over the prior 24 hours should be incorporated as part of the clinical evaluation. Another distinction is how to handle clinical features before and after lorazepam challenge. As noted in the BFCRS Training Manual, it would be appropriate to compare “state assessments” (that is, restricted to features identified only during direct, in-person assessment) from before and after lorazepam administration to document improvement.⁴

Whereas DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 are broadly in agreement, comparing these systems with catatonia rating scales reveals many sources of potential confusion, but also concrete guidance on operationalizing individual items.⁵ How exactly should each of catatonia’s clinical signs be defined? Descriptions differ, and thresholds of duration and frequency vary considerably across scales. As a result, clinicians who use different scales and then convert these results to diagnostic criteria are liable to come to different clinical conclusions. For instance, both echophenomena and negativism must be elicited more than five times to be scored per Northoff,⁸ but even a single convincing instance of either would be scored on the BFCRS as “occasional.”²

Such discrepancies are important because, whereas the psychometric properties of several catatonia scales have been documented, there are no analogous studies on the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 criteria. Therefore, it is essential for clinicians and researchers to document how diagnostic criteria have been operationalized. The most practical and evidence-based way to do this is to use a clinically validated scale and convert these to diagnostic criteria, yet in doing so a few modifications will be necessary.

Of the available clinical scales, the BFCRS is best positioned for clinical use. The BFCRS has been validated clinically and has good reliability, detailed item definitions and audiovisual examples available. In addition, it is the only scale with a published semistructured evaluation (see initial paper and Training Manual), which takes about 5 minutes.2,4 In terms of utility, all 12 signs included by DSM-5-TR are among the first 14 items on the BFCRS, which constitutes a standalone tool known as the Bush-Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument (BFCSI, see Table).

Many fundamental questions remain about catatonia,but the importance of a shared understanding of its clinical features is clear.⁹ Catatonia should be on the differential whenever a patient exhibits a markedly altered level of activity or grossly abnormal behavior, especially when inappropriate to context. We encourage readers to familiarize themselves with the phenotype of catatonia through online educational resources⁴ because the optimal care of patients with catatonia requires – at a minimum – that we know what we’re looking for.

Dr. Oldham is assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center. Dr. Francis is professor of psychiatry at Penn State University, Hershey. The authors declare no relevant conflicts of interest. Funding for the educational project hosted at https://bfcrs.urmc.edu was provided by the department of psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center. Dr. Oldham is currently supported by a K23 career development award from the National Institute on Aging (AG072383). The educational resources referenced in this piece could not have been created were it not for the intellectual and thespian collaboration of Joshua R. Wortzel, MD, who is currently a fellow in child and adolescent psychiatry at Brown University, Providence, R.I. The authors are also indebted to Hochang B. Lee, MD, for his gracious support of this project.

References

1. Wortzel JR et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2021 Aug 17;82(5):21m14025. doi: 10.4088/JCP.21m14025.

2. Bush G et al. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1996 Feb;93(2):129-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1996.tb09814.x.

3. Weleff J et al. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatry. 2023 Jan-Feb;64(1):13-27. doi:10.1016/j.jaclp.2022.07.002.

4. Oldham MA et al. Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Assessment Resources. University of Rochester Medical Center, Department of Psychiatry. https://bfcrs.urmc.edu.

5. Oldham MA. Schizophr Res. 2022 Aug 19;S0920-9964(22)00294-8. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2022.08.002.

6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5-TR. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 2022.

7. World Health Organization. ICD-11 for Mortality and Morbidity Stastistics. 2022. https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/486722075.

8. Northoff G et al. Mov Disord. May 1999;14(3):404-16. doi: 10.1002/1531-8257(199905)14:3<404::AID-MDS1004>3.0.CO;2-5.

9. Walther S et al. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2019 Jul;6(7):610-9. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30474-7.

Sleep disturbances are consistently high throughout the course of psychosis, with later stages associated with distinctive brain wave activity during sleep, a new review and meta-analysis shows.

For example, compared with their healthy peers, participants in a chronic psychosis stage had reduced density, amplitude, and duration of spindles – or bursts of brainwave activity during sleep identified by electroencephalography.

“The results suggest sleep could be an important target [and] an area of research and clinical intervention that could make a difference” in the lives of patients at risk for psychosis, study investigator Fabio Ferrarelli, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the Sleep and Schizophrenia Program, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization.

University of Pittsburgh

‘Window of opportunity’

Researchers separate psychosis into stages. During the “clinically high-risk for psychosis” (CHR-P) stage, patients have milder symptoms but do not have a diagnosable psychotic disorder. Those in the early psychosis (EP) stage have had a first episode of psychosis. When they reach a cut-off, often at 5 years, they are considered to have chronic psychosis (CP).

Previous studies have shown that altered sleep often precedes a psychotic episode in early psychosis, and disrupted sleep contributes to predicting transition to psychosis in youth at risk for the condition. Individuals with CP commonly report sleep disturbances, such as insomnia.

Following a literature search, the investigators for this current meta-analysis selected 21 studies assessing sleep disturbance prevalence in 5,135 patients. They also selected 39 studies measuring sleep alterations subjectively (for example, sleep quality) and/or objectively (for example, sleep architecture and sleep oscillation) in 1,575 patients and 977 healthy controls.

The included studies measured the prevalence of sleep disturbances and/or sleep characteristics at different psychosis stages using polysomnography, EEG, actigraphy, or self-reports.

The pooled prevalence of sleep disturbances was 50% across clinical stages (95% confidence interval, 40%-61%). The prevalence was 54% in CHR-P, 68% in EP, and 44% in CP.

The prevalence of insomnia as the primary sleep disturbance was 34% of pooled cases, 48% of the EP group, and 27% of the CP group.

“What’s interesting is the rate of sleep disturbances is relatively stable across stages,” said Dr. Ferrarelli. “This is important because you have a window of opportunity to do some early intervention in people who are at risk that can prevent things from getting worse.”

He suggests clinicians screen for insomnia in early-course patients and perhaps recommend cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia. As well, they should promote sleep hygiene measures for at-risk patients, including such things as avoiding caffeine, alcohol, and screen time before bedtime and adopting a regular sleep pattern.

“These are people at risk, which means they have a 20%-30% chance of eventually developing a psychotic disorder,” said Dr. Ferrarelli. “Maybe disrupted sleep is one of the factors that can make a difference.”
 

Altered sleep architecture

To compare sleep quality between clinical and control groups, studies used total scores on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), where a score over 5 indicates a sleep problem.

There was a significant standardized mean difference in pooled cases versus controls (SMD, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3; P < .001). Each clinical group showed poorer sleep quality, compared with controls.

When assessing sleep architecture abnormalities, stage-specific case-control comparisons showed these were driven by EP and CP stages.

Altered sleep characteristics in both these stages included increased sleep onset latency, increased wake after sleep onset, and reduced sleep efficiency.

Compared with controls, CP was the only clinical group with more arousals. Patients with CP also had more arousals than the CHR-P group, and the number of arousals was significantly affected by medication.

The findings indicate the effects of antipsychotic medications on sleep should be closely monitored, especially in CP, the investigators write.

They add that clinicians should consider medication adjustments, such as decreased doses or switches to another compound.
 

‘Robust’ spindle results

As for spindle parameters, pooled cases showed significantly decreased spindle density (SMD, –1.06), spindle amplitude (SMD, –1.08), and spindle duration (SMD, −1.21), compared with controls. Stage-specific comparisons revealed these deficits were present in both EP and CP relative to controls.

Dr. Ferrarelli noted the results for spindle abnormalities were among “the most robust” and show that these abnormalities “tend to get worse over the course of the illness.”

The spindle data are “a lot more informative” than that provided by other sleep parameters “in the sense they can yield what could be wrong, where it could be, and potentially what you can do about it,” said Dr. Ferrarelli.

“This might be an objective measure that could be used to identify individuals who have a psychosis disorder, monitor progression of illness, and for prognostic reasons,” he added.

He noted that spindles may also represent a promising target for treatment interventions and added that non-invasive transcranial magnetic stimulation has shown promise in restoring sleep oscillations, including spindles.

Another way to evoke target-brain activity may be through auditory tones – with a patient listening to a particular sound through headphones while asleep, Dr. Ferrarelli said.
 

Reaffirms previous data

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, professor and chair in psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and a past president of the American Psychiatric Association, noted that the review “just reaffirms what has been reported by individual studies for decades.”

That so many at-risk study subjects had a sleep abnormality is not surprising, said Dr. Lieberman, who was not involved with the current research.

“How many individuals in late adolescence or early adulthood have sleep problems?” he asked. “I would venture to say it’s probably a lot. So the question is: How distinctive is this from what occurs in people who don’t develop the illness?”

The aim of sleep research in the area of schizophrenia has long been to disentangle the effects of medication and environmental factors from the disease and to be able to treat patients to normalize their sleep, said Dr. Lieberman.

“But it’s not clear from these results how one would do that,” he added.

The authors “don’t fundamentally tell us anything about the underlying cause of the illness or the pathophysiology, and they don’t really offer any kind of clear direction for clinical intervention,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Ferrarelli reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study. Dr. Lieberman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleep disturbances are consistently high throughout the course of psychosis, with later stages associated with distinctive brain wave activity during sleep, a new review and meta-analysis shows.

For example, compared with their healthy peers, participants in a chronic psychosis stage had reduced density, amplitude, and duration of spindles – or bursts of brainwave activity during sleep identified by electroencephalography.

“The results suggest sleep could be an important target [and] an area of research and clinical intervention that could make a difference” in the lives of patients at risk for psychosis, study investigator Fabio Ferrarelli, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the Sleep and Schizophrenia Program, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization.

University of Pittsburgh

‘Window of opportunity’

Researchers separate psychosis into stages. During the “clinically high-risk for psychosis” (CHR-P) stage, patients have milder symptoms but do not have a diagnosable psychotic disorder. Those in the early psychosis (EP) stage have had a first episode of psychosis. When they reach a cut-off, often at 5 years, they are considered to have chronic psychosis (CP).

Previous studies have shown that altered sleep often precedes a psychotic episode in early psychosis, and disrupted sleep contributes to predicting transition to psychosis in youth at risk for the condition. Individuals with CP commonly report sleep disturbances, such as insomnia.

Following a literature search, the investigators for this current meta-analysis selected 21 studies assessing sleep disturbance prevalence in 5,135 patients. They also selected 39 studies measuring sleep alterations subjectively (for example, sleep quality) and/or objectively (for example, sleep architecture and sleep oscillation) in 1,575 patients and 977 healthy controls.

The included studies measured the prevalence of sleep disturbances and/or sleep characteristics at different psychosis stages using polysomnography, EEG, actigraphy, or self-reports.

The pooled prevalence of sleep disturbances was 50% across clinical stages (95% confidence interval, 40%-61%). The prevalence was 54% in CHR-P, 68% in EP, and 44% in CP.

The prevalence of insomnia as the primary sleep disturbance was 34% of pooled cases, 48% of the EP group, and 27% of the CP group.

“What’s interesting is the rate of sleep disturbances is relatively stable across stages,” said Dr. Ferrarelli. “This is important because you have a window of opportunity to do some early intervention in people who are at risk that can prevent things from getting worse.”

He suggests clinicians screen for insomnia in early-course patients and perhaps recommend cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia. As well, they should promote sleep hygiene measures for at-risk patients, including such things as avoiding caffeine, alcohol, and screen time before bedtime and adopting a regular sleep pattern.

“These are people at risk, which means they have a 20%-30% chance of eventually developing a psychotic disorder,” said Dr. Ferrarelli. “Maybe disrupted sleep is one of the factors that can make a difference.”
 

Altered sleep architecture

To compare sleep quality between clinical and control groups, studies used total scores on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), where a score over 5 indicates a sleep problem.

There was a significant standardized mean difference in pooled cases versus controls (SMD, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3; P < .001). Each clinical group showed poorer sleep quality, compared with controls.

When assessing sleep architecture abnormalities, stage-specific case-control comparisons showed these were driven by EP and CP stages.

Altered sleep characteristics in both these stages included increased sleep onset latency, increased wake after sleep onset, and reduced sleep efficiency.

Compared with controls, CP was the only clinical group with more arousals. Patients with CP also had more arousals than the CHR-P group, and the number of arousals was significantly affected by medication.

The findings indicate the effects of antipsychotic medications on sleep should be closely monitored, especially in CP, the investigators write.

They add that clinicians should consider medication adjustments, such as decreased doses or switches to another compound.
 

‘Robust’ spindle results

As for spindle parameters, pooled cases showed significantly decreased spindle density (SMD, –1.06), spindle amplitude (SMD, –1.08), and spindle duration (SMD, −1.21), compared with controls. Stage-specific comparisons revealed these deficits were present in both EP and CP relative to controls.

Dr. Ferrarelli noted the results for spindle abnormalities were among “the most robust” and show that these abnormalities “tend to get worse over the course of the illness.”

The spindle data are “a lot more informative” than that provided by other sleep parameters “in the sense they can yield what could be wrong, where it could be, and potentially what you can do about it,” said Dr. Ferrarelli.

“This might be an objective measure that could be used to identify individuals who have a psychosis disorder, monitor progression of illness, and for prognostic reasons,” he added.

He noted that spindles may also represent a promising target for treatment interventions and added that non-invasive transcranial magnetic stimulation has shown promise in restoring sleep oscillations, including spindles.

Another way to evoke target-brain activity may be through auditory tones – with a patient listening to a particular sound through headphones while asleep, Dr. Ferrarelli said.
 

Reaffirms previous data

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, professor and chair in psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and a past president of the American Psychiatric Association, noted that the review “just reaffirms what has been reported by individual studies for decades.”

That so many at-risk study subjects had a sleep abnormality is not surprising, said Dr. Lieberman, who was not involved with the current research.

“How many individuals in late adolescence or early adulthood have sleep problems?” he asked. “I would venture to say it’s probably a lot. So the question is: How distinctive is this from what occurs in people who don’t develop the illness?”

The aim of sleep research in the area of schizophrenia has long been to disentangle the effects of medication and environmental factors from the disease and to be able to treat patients to normalize their sleep, said Dr. Lieberman.

“But it’s not clear from these results how one would do that,” he added.

The authors “don’t fundamentally tell us anything about the underlying cause of the illness or the pathophysiology, and they don’t really offer any kind of clear direction for clinical intervention,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Ferrarelli reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study. Dr. Lieberman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleep disturbances are consistently high throughout the course of psychosis, with later stages associated with distinctive brain wave activity during sleep, a new review and meta-analysis shows.

For example, compared with their healthy peers, participants in a chronic psychosis stage had reduced density, amplitude, and duration of spindles – or bursts of brainwave activity during sleep identified by electroencephalography.

“The results suggest sleep could be an important target [and] an area of research and clinical intervention that could make a difference” in the lives of patients at risk for psychosis, study investigator Fabio Ferrarelli, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry and director of the Sleep and Schizophrenia Program, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, told this news organization.

University of Pittsburgh

‘Window of opportunity’

Researchers separate psychosis into stages. During the “clinically high-risk for psychosis” (CHR-P) stage, patients have milder symptoms but do not have a diagnosable psychotic disorder. Those in the early psychosis (EP) stage have had a first episode of psychosis. When they reach a cut-off, often at 5 years, they are considered to have chronic psychosis (CP).

Previous studies have shown that altered sleep often precedes a psychotic episode in early psychosis, and disrupted sleep contributes to predicting transition to psychosis in youth at risk for the condition. Individuals with CP commonly report sleep disturbances, such as insomnia.

Following a literature search, the investigators for this current meta-analysis selected 21 studies assessing sleep disturbance prevalence in 5,135 patients. They also selected 39 studies measuring sleep alterations subjectively (for example, sleep quality) and/or objectively (for example, sleep architecture and sleep oscillation) in 1,575 patients and 977 healthy controls.

The included studies measured the prevalence of sleep disturbances and/or sleep characteristics at different psychosis stages using polysomnography, EEG, actigraphy, or self-reports.

The pooled prevalence of sleep disturbances was 50% across clinical stages (95% confidence interval, 40%-61%). The prevalence was 54% in CHR-P, 68% in EP, and 44% in CP.

The prevalence of insomnia as the primary sleep disturbance was 34% of pooled cases, 48% of the EP group, and 27% of the CP group.

“What’s interesting is the rate of sleep disturbances is relatively stable across stages,” said Dr. Ferrarelli. “This is important because you have a window of opportunity to do some early intervention in people who are at risk that can prevent things from getting worse.”

He suggests clinicians screen for insomnia in early-course patients and perhaps recommend cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia. As well, they should promote sleep hygiene measures for at-risk patients, including such things as avoiding caffeine, alcohol, and screen time before bedtime and adopting a regular sleep pattern.

“These are people at risk, which means they have a 20%-30% chance of eventually developing a psychotic disorder,” said Dr. Ferrarelli. “Maybe disrupted sleep is one of the factors that can make a difference.”
 

Altered sleep architecture

To compare sleep quality between clinical and control groups, studies used total scores on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), where a score over 5 indicates a sleep problem.

There was a significant standardized mean difference in pooled cases versus controls (SMD, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.7-1.3; P < .001). Each clinical group showed poorer sleep quality, compared with controls.

When assessing sleep architecture abnormalities, stage-specific case-control comparisons showed these were driven by EP and CP stages.

Altered sleep characteristics in both these stages included increased sleep onset latency, increased wake after sleep onset, and reduced sleep efficiency.

Compared with controls, CP was the only clinical group with more arousals. Patients with CP also had more arousals than the CHR-P group, and the number of arousals was significantly affected by medication.

The findings indicate the effects of antipsychotic medications on sleep should be closely monitored, especially in CP, the investigators write.

They add that clinicians should consider medication adjustments, such as decreased doses or switches to another compound.
 

‘Robust’ spindle results

As for spindle parameters, pooled cases showed significantly decreased spindle density (SMD, –1.06), spindle amplitude (SMD, –1.08), and spindle duration (SMD, −1.21), compared with controls. Stage-specific comparisons revealed these deficits were present in both EP and CP relative to controls.

Dr. Ferrarelli noted the results for spindle abnormalities were among “the most robust” and show that these abnormalities “tend to get worse over the course of the illness.”

The spindle data are “a lot more informative” than that provided by other sleep parameters “in the sense they can yield what could be wrong, where it could be, and potentially what you can do about it,” said Dr. Ferrarelli.

“This might be an objective measure that could be used to identify individuals who have a psychosis disorder, monitor progression of illness, and for prognostic reasons,” he added.

He noted that spindles may also represent a promising target for treatment interventions and added that non-invasive transcranial magnetic stimulation has shown promise in restoring sleep oscillations, including spindles.

Another way to evoke target-brain activity may be through auditory tones – with a patient listening to a particular sound through headphones while asleep, Dr. Ferrarelli said.
 

Reaffirms previous data

Commenting on the study, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, professor and chair in psychiatry at Columbia University, New York, and a past president of the American Psychiatric Association, noted that the review “just reaffirms what has been reported by individual studies for decades.”

That so many at-risk study subjects had a sleep abnormality is not surprising, said Dr. Lieberman, who was not involved with the current research.

“How many individuals in late adolescence or early adulthood have sleep problems?” he asked. “I would venture to say it’s probably a lot. So the question is: How distinctive is this from what occurs in people who don’t develop the illness?”

The aim of sleep research in the area of schizophrenia has long been to disentangle the effects of medication and environmental factors from the disease and to be able to treat patients to normalize their sleep, said Dr. Lieberman.

“But it’s not clear from these results how one would do that,” he added.

The authors “don’t fundamentally tell us anything about the underlying cause of the illness or the pathophysiology, and they don’t really offer any kind of clear direction for clinical intervention,” he said.

The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Ferrarelli reported grants from the National Institute of Mental Health during the conduct of the study. Dr. Lieberman has reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A specific lipid profile can identify patients with schizophrenia, possibly paving the way for the development of the first clinically useful diagnostic test for a severe psychiatric illness, new research suggests.

Although such a test remains a long way off, investigators said, the identification of the unique lipid signature is a critical first step. However, one expert noted that the lipid signature not accurately differentiating patients with schizophrenia from those with bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) limits the findings’ applicability.

The profile includes 77 lipids identified from a large analysis of many different classes of lipid species. Lipids such as cholesterol and triglycerides made up only a small fraction of the classes assessed.

The investigators noted that some of the lipids in the profile associated with schizophrenia are involved in determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging, which could be important to synaptic function.

“These 77 lipids jointly constitute a lipidomic profile that discriminated between individuals with schizophrenia and individuals without a mental health diagnosis with very high accuracy,” investigator Eva C. Schulte, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics (IPPG) and the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, told this news organization.

“Of note, we did not see large profile differences between patients with a first psychotic episode who had only been treated for a few days and individuals on long-term antipsychotic therapy,” Dr. Schulte said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Detailed analysis

Lipid profiles in patients with psychiatric diagnoses have been reported previously, but those studies were small and did not identify a reliable signature independent of demographic and environmental factors.

For the current study, researchers analyzed blood plasma lipid levels from 980 individuals with severe psychiatric illness and 572 people without mental illness from three cohorts in China, Germany, Austria, and Russia.

The study sample included patients with schizophrenia (n = 478), BD (n = 184), and MDD (n = 256), as well as 104 patients with a first psychotic episode who had no long-term psychopharmacology use.

Results showed 77 lipids in 14 classes were significantly altered between participants with schizophrenia and the healthy control in all three cohorts.

The most prominent alterations at the lipid class level included increases in ceramide, triacylglyceride, and phosphatidylcholine and decreases in acylcarnitine and phosphatidylcholine plasmalogen (P < .05 for each cohort).

Schizophrenia-associated lipid differences were similar between patients with high and low symptom severity (P < .001), suggesting that the lipid alterations might represent a trait of the psychiatric disorder.
 

No medication effect

Most patients in the study received long-term antipsychotic medication, which has been shown previously to affect some plasma lipid compounds.

So, to assess a possible effect of medication, the investigators evaluated 13 patients with schizophrenia who were not medicated for at least 6 months prior to blood sample collection and the cohort of patients with a first psychotic episode who had been medicated for less than 1 week.

Comparison of the lipid intensity differences between the healthy controls group and either participants receiving medication or those who were not medicated revealed highly correlated alterations in both patient groups (P < .001).

“Taken together, these results indicate that the identified schizophrenia-associated alterations cannot be attributed to medication effects,” the investigators wrote.

Lipidome alterations in BPD and MDD, assessed in 184 and 256 individuals, respectively, were similar to those of schizophrenia but not identical.

Researchers isolated 97 lipids altered in the MDD cohorts and 47 in the BPD cohorts – with 30 and 28, respectively, overlapping with the schizophrenia-associated features and seven of the lipids found among all three disorders.

Although this was significantly more than expected by chance (P < .001), it was not strong enough to demonstrate a clear association, the investigators wrote.

“The profiles were very successful at differentiating individuals with severe mental health conditions from individuals without a diagnosed mental health condition, but much less so at differentiating between the different diagnostic entities,” coinvestigator Thomas G. Schulze, MD, director of IPPG, said in an interview.

“An important caveat, however, is that the available sample sizes for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder were smaller than those for schizophrenia, which makes a direct comparison between these difficult,” added Dr. Schulze, clinical professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at State University of New York, Syracuse.
 

More work remains

Although the study is thought to be the largest to date to examine lipid profiles associated with serious psychiatric illness, much work remains, Dr. Schulze noted.

“At this time, based on these first results, no clinical diagnostic test can be derived from these results,” he said.

He added that the development of reliable biomarkers based on lipidomic profiles would require large prospective randomized trials, complemented by observational studies assessing full lipidomic profiles across the lifespan.

Researchers also need to better understand the exact mechanism by which lipid alterations are associated with schizophrenia and other illnesses.

Physiologically, the investigated lipids have many additional functions, such as determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging.

Dr. Schulte noted that several lipid species may be involved in determining mechanisms important to synaptic function, such as cell membrane fluidity and vesicle release.

“As is commonly known, alterations in synaptic function underly many severe psychiatric disorders,” she said. “Changes in lipid species could theoretically be related to these synaptic alterations.”
 

A better marker needed

In a comment, Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis and Evansville, noted that while the findings are interesting, they don’t really offer the kind of information clinicians who treat patients with serious mental illness need most.

“Do we need a marker to tell us if someone’s got a major mental illness compared to a healthy person?” asked Dr. Strakowski, who was not part of the study. “The answer to that is no. We already know how to do that.”

A truly useful marker would help clinicians differentiate between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, or another serious mental illness, he said.

“That’s the marker that would be most helpful,” he added. “This can’t address that, but perhaps it could be a step to start designing a test for that.”

Dr. Strakowksi noted that the findings do not clarify whether the lipid profile found in patients with schizophrenia predates diagnosis or whether it is a result of the mental illness, an unrelated illness, or another factor that could be critical in treating patients.

However, he was quick to point out the limitations don’t diminish the importance of the study.

“It’s a large dataset that’s cross-national, cross-diagnostic that says there appears to be a signal here that there’s something about lipid profiles that may be independent of treatment that could be worth understanding,” Dr. Strakowksi said.

“It allows us to think about developing different models based on lipid profiles, and that’s important,” he added.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, National One Thousand Foreign Experts Plan, Moscow Center for Innovative Technologies in Healthcare, European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, NARSAD Young Investigator Grant, German Research Foundation, German Ministry for Education and Research, the Dr. Lisa Oehler Foundation, and the Munich Clinician Scientist Program. Dr. Schulze and Dr. Schulte reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A specific lipid profile can identify patients with schizophrenia, possibly paving the way for the development of the first clinically useful diagnostic test for a severe psychiatric illness, new research suggests.

Although such a test remains a long way off, investigators said, the identification of the unique lipid signature is a critical first step. However, one expert noted that the lipid signature not accurately differentiating patients with schizophrenia from those with bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) limits the findings’ applicability.

The profile includes 77 lipids identified from a large analysis of many different classes of lipid species. Lipids such as cholesterol and triglycerides made up only a small fraction of the classes assessed.

The investigators noted that some of the lipids in the profile associated with schizophrenia are involved in determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging, which could be important to synaptic function.

“These 77 lipids jointly constitute a lipidomic profile that discriminated between individuals with schizophrenia and individuals without a mental health diagnosis with very high accuracy,” investigator Eva C. Schulte, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics (IPPG) and the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, told this news organization.

“Of note, we did not see large profile differences between patients with a first psychotic episode who had only been treated for a few days and individuals on long-term antipsychotic therapy,” Dr. Schulte said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Detailed analysis

Lipid profiles in patients with psychiatric diagnoses have been reported previously, but those studies were small and did not identify a reliable signature independent of demographic and environmental factors.

For the current study, researchers analyzed blood plasma lipid levels from 980 individuals with severe psychiatric illness and 572 people without mental illness from three cohorts in China, Germany, Austria, and Russia.

The study sample included patients with schizophrenia (n = 478), BD (n = 184), and MDD (n = 256), as well as 104 patients with a first psychotic episode who had no long-term psychopharmacology use.

Results showed 77 lipids in 14 classes were significantly altered between participants with schizophrenia and the healthy control in all three cohorts.

The most prominent alterations at the lipid class level included increases in ceramide, triacylglyceride, and phosphatidylcholine and decreases in acylcarnitine and phosphatidylcholine plasmalogen (P < .05 for each cohort).

Schizophrenia-associated lipid differences were similar between patients with high and low symptom severity (P < .001), suggesting that the lipid alterations might represent a trait of the psychiatric disorder.
 

No medication effect

Most patients in the study received long-term antipsychotic medication, which has been shown previously to affect some plasma lipid compounds.

So, to assess a possible effect of medication, the investigators evaluated 13 patients with schizophrenia who were not medicated for at least 6 months prior to blood sample collection and the cohort of patients with a first psychotic episode who had been medicated for less than 1 week.

Comparison of the lipid intensity differences between the healthy controls group and either participants receiving medication or those who were not medicated revealed highly correlated alterations in both patient groups (P < .001).

“Taken together, these results indicate that the identified schizophrenia-associated alterations cannot be attributed to medication effects,” the investigators wrote.

Lipidome alterations in BPD and MDD, assessed in 184 and 256 individuals, respectively, were similar to those of schizophrenia but not identical.

Researchers isolated 97 lipids altered in the MDD cohorts and 47 in the BPD cohorts – with 30 and 28, respectively, overlapping with the schizophrenia-associated features and seven of the lipids found among all three disorders.

Although this was significantly more than expected by chance (P < .001), it was not strong enough to demonstrate a clear association, the investigators wrote.

“The profiles were very successful at differentiating individuals with severe mental health conditions from individuals without a diagnosed mental health condition, but much less so at differentiating between the different diagnostic entities,” coinvestigator Thomas G. Schulze, MD, director of IPPG, said in an interview.

“An important caveat, however, is that the available sample sizes for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder were smaller than those for schizophrenia, which makes a direct comparison between these difficult,” added Dr. Schulze, clinical professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at State University of New York, Syracuse.
 

More work remains

Although the study is thought to be the largest to date to examine lipid profiles associated with serious psychiatric illness, much work remains, Dr. Schulze noted.

“At this time, based on these first results, no clinical diagnostic test can be derived from these results,” he said.

He added that the development of reliable biomarkers based on lipidomic profiles would require large prospective randomized trials, complemented by observational studies assessing full lipidomic profiles across the lifespan.

Researchers also need to better understand the exact mechanism by which lipid alterations are associated with schizophrenia and other illnesses.

Physiologically, the investigated lipids have many additional functions, such as determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging.

Dr. Schulte noted that several lipid species may be involved in determining mechanisms important to synaptic function, such as cell membrane fluidity and vesicle release.

“As is commonly known, alterations in synaptic function underly many severe psychiatric disorders,” she said. “Changes in lipid species could theoretically be related to these synaptic alterations.”
 

A better marker needed

In a comment, Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis and Evansville, noted that while the findings are interesting, they don’t really offer the kind of information clinicians who treat patients with serious mental illness need most.

“Do we need a marker to tell us if someone’s got a major mental illness compared to a healthy person?” asked Dr. Strakowski, who was not part of the study. “The answer to that is no. We already know how to do that.”

A truly useful marker would help clinicians differentiate between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, or another serious mental illness, he said.

“That’s the marker that would be most helpful,” he added. “This can’t address that, but perhaps it could be a step to start designing a test for that.”

Dr. Strakowksi noted that the findings do not clarify whether the lipid profile found in patients with schizophrenia predates diagnosis or whether it is a result of the mental illness, an unrelated illness, or another factor that could be critical in treating patients.

However, he was quick to point out the limitations don’t diminish the importance of the study.

“It’s a large dataset that’s cross-national, cross-diagnostic that says there appears to be a signal here that there’s something about lipid profiles that may be independent of treatment that could be worth understanding,” Dr. Strakowksi said.

“It allows us to think about developing different models based on lipid profiles, and that’s important,” he added.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, National One Thousand Foreign Experts Plan, Moscow Center for Innovative Technologies in Healthcare, European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, NARSAD Young Investigator Grant, German Research Foundation, German Ministry for Education and Research, the Dr. Lisa Oehler Foundation, and the Munich Clinician Scientist Program. Dr. Schulze and Dr. Schulte reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A specific lipid profile can identify patients with schizophrenia, possibly paving the way for the development of the first clinically useful diagnostic test for a severe psychiatric illness, new research suggests.

Although such a test remains a long way off, investigators said, the identification of the unique lipid signature is a critical first step. However, one expert noted that the lipid signature not accurately differentiating patients with schizophrenia from those with bipolar disorder (BD) and major depressive disorder (MDD) limits the findings’ applicability.

The profile includes 77 lipids identified from a large analysis of many different classes of lipid species. Lipids such as cholesterol and triglycerides made up only a small fraction of the classes assessed.

The investigators noted that some of the lipids in the profile associated with schizophrenia are involved in determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging, which could be important to synaptic function.

“These 77 lipids jointly constitute a lipidomic profile that discriminated between individuals with schizophrenia and individuals without a mental health diagnosis with very high accuracy,” investigator Eva C. Schulte, MD, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics (IPPG) and the department of psychiatry and psychotherapy at University Hospital of Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Munich, told this news organization.

“Of note, we did not see large profile differences between patients with a first psychotic episode who had only been treated for a few days and individuals on long-term antipsychotic therapy,” Dr. Schulte said.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Detailed analysis

Lipid profiles in patients with psychiatric diagnoses have been reported previously, but those studies were small and did not identify a reliable signature independent of demographic and environmental factors.

For the current study, researchers analyzed blood plasma lipid levels from 980 individuals with severe psychiatric illness and 572 people without mental illness from three cohorts in China, Germany, Austria, and Russia.

The study sample included patients with schizophrenia (n = 478), BD (n = 184), and MDD (n = 256), as well as 104 patients with a first psychotic episode who had no long-term psychopharmacology use.

Results showed 77 lipids in 14 classes were significantly altered between participants with schizophrenia and the healthy control in all three cohorts.

The most prominent alterations at the lipid class level included increases in ceramide, triacylglyceride, and phosphatidylcholine and decreases in acylcarnitine and phosphatidylcholine plasmalogen (P < .05 for each cohort).

Schizophrenia-associated lipid differences were similar between patients with high and low symptom severity (P < .001), suggesting that the lipid alterations might represent a trait of the psychiatric disorder.
 

No medication effect

Most patients in the study received long-term antipsychotic medication, which has been shown previously to affect some plasma lipid compounds.

So, to assess a possible effect of medication, the investigators evaluated 13 patients with schizophrenia who were not medicated for at least 6 months prior to blood sample collection and the cohort of patients with a first psychotic episode who had been medicated for less than 1 week.

Comparison of the lipid intensity differences between the healthy controls group and either participants receiving medication or those who were not medicated revealed highly correlated alterations in both patient groups (P < .001).

“Taken together, these results indicate that the identified schizophrenia-associated alterations cannot be attributed to medication effects,” the investigators wrote.

Lipidome alterations in BPD and MDD, assessed in 184 and 256 individuals, respectively, were similar to those of schizophrenia but not identical.

Researchers isolated 97 lipids altered in the MDD cohorts and 47 in the BPD cohorts – with 30 and 28, respectively, overlapping with the schizophrenia-associated features and seven of the lipids found among all three disorders.

Although this was significantly more than expected by chance (P < .001), it was not strong enough to demonstrate a clear association, the investigators wrote.

“The profiles were very successful at differentiating individuals with severe mental health conditions from individuals without a diagnosed mental health condition, but much less so at differentiating between the different diagnostic entities,” coinvestigator Thomas G. Schulze, MD, director of IPPG, said in an interview.

“An important caveat, however, is that the available sample sizes for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder were smaller than those for schizophrenia, which makes a direct comparison between these difficult,” added Dr. Schulze, clinical professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at State University of New York, Syracuse.
 

More work remains

Although the study is thought to be the largest to date to examine lipid profiles associated with serious psychiatric illness, much work remains, Dr. Schulze noted.

“At this time, based on these first results, no clinical diagnostic test can be derived from these results,” he said.

He added that the development of reliable biomarkers based on lipidomic profiles would require large prospective randomized trials, complemented by observational studies assessing full lipidomic profiles across the lifespan.

Researchers also need to better understand the exact mechanism by which lipid alterations are associated with schizophrenia and other illnesses.

Physiologically, the investigated lipids have many additional functions, such as determining cell membrane structure and fluidity or cell-to-cell messaging.

Dr. Schulte noted that several lipid species may be involved in determining mechanisms important to synaptic function, such as cell membrane fluidity and vesicle release.

“As is commonly known, alterations in synaptic function underly many severe psychiatric disorders,” she said. “Changes in lipid species could theoretically be related to these synaptic alterations.”
 

A better marker needed

In a comment, Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor and vice chair of research in the department of psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis and Evansville, noted that while the findings are interesting, they don’t really offer the kind of information clinicians who treat patients with serious mental illness need most.

“Do we need a marker to tell us if someone’s got a major mental illness compared to a healthy person?” asked Dr. Strakowski, who was not part of the study. “The answer to that is no. We already know how to do that.”

A truly useful marker would help clinicians differentiate between schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, or another serious mental illness, he said.

“That’s the marker that would be most helpful,” he added. “This can’t address that, but perhaps it could be a step to start designing a test for that.”

Dr. Strakowksi noted that the findings do not clarify whether the lipid profile found in patients with schizophrenia predates diagnosis or whether it is a result of the mental illness, an unrelated illness, or another factor that could be critical in treating patients.

However, he was quick to point out the limitations don’t diminish the importance of the study.

“It’s a large dataset that’s cross-national, cross-diagnostic that says there appears to be a signal here that there’s something about lipid profiles that may be independent of treatment that could be worth understanding,” Dr. Strakowksi said.

“It allows us to think about developing different models based on lipid profiles, and that’s important,” he added.

The study was funded by the National Key R&D Program of China, National One Thousand Foreign Experts Plan, Moscow Center for Innovative Technologies in Healthcare, European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme, NARSAD Young Investigator Grant, German Research Foundation, German Ministry for Education and Research, the Dr. Lisa Oehler Foundation, and the Munich Clinician Scientist Program. Dr. Schulze and Dr. Schulte reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In 2021, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ Suicide resulted in 49,000 US deaths during 2021; it was the second most common cause of death in individuals age 10 to 34, and the fifth leading cause among children.^1,2 Women are 3 to 4 times more likely than men to attempt suicide, but men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide.²

The evaluation of patients with suicidal ideation who have not made an attempt generally involves assessing 4 factors: the specific plan, access to lethal means, any recent social stressors, and the presence of a psychiatric disorder.³ The clinician should also assess which potential deterrents, such as religious beliefs or dependent children, might be present.

Mental health clinicians are often called upon to evaluate a patient after a suicide attempt to assess intent for continued self-harm and to determine appropriate disposition. Such an evaluation must consider multiple factors, including the method used, premeditation, consequences of the attempt, the presence of severe depression and/or psychosis, and the role of substance use. Assessment after a suicide attempt differs from the examination of individuals who harbor suicidal thoughts but have not made an attempt; the latter group may be more likely to respond to interventions such as intensive outpatient care, mobilization of family support, and religious proscriptions against suicide. However, for patients who make an attempt to end their life, whatever potential safeguards or deterrents to suicide that were in place obviously did not prevent the self-harm act. The consequences of the attempt, such as disabling injuries or medical complications, and possible involuntary commitment, need to be considered. Assessment of the patient’s feelings about having survived the attempt is important because the psychological impact of the attempt on family members may serve to intensify the patient’s depression and make a subsequent attempt more likely.

Many individuals who think of suicide have communicated self-harm thoughts or intentions, but such comments are often minimized or ignored. There is a common but erroneous belief that if patients are encouraged to discuss thoughts of self-harm, they will be more likely to act upon them. Because the opposite is true,⁴ clinicians should ask vulnerable patients about suicidal ideation or intent. Importantly, noncompliance with life-saving medical care, risk-taking behaviors, and substance use may also signal a desire for self-harm. Passive thoughts of death, typified by comments such as “I don’t care whether I wake up or not,” should also be elicited. Many patients who think of suicide speak of being in a “bad place” where reason and logic give way to an intense desire to end their misery.

The evaluation of a patient who has attempted suicide is an important component of providing psychiatric care. This article reflects our 45 years of evaluating such patients. As such, it reflects our clinical experience and is not evidence-based. We offer a checklist of 14 questions that we have found helpful when determining if it would be best for a patient to receive inpatient psychiatric hospitalization or a discharge referral for outpatient care (Table). Questions 1 through 6 are specific for patients who have made a suicide attempt, while questions 7 through 14 are helpful for assessing global risk factors for suicide.

1. Was the attempt premeditated?

Determining premeditation vs impulsivity is an essential element of the assessment following a suicide attempt. Many such acts may occur without forethought in response to an unexpected stressor, such as an altercation between partners or family conflicts. Impulsive attempts can occur when an individual is involved in a distressing event and/or while intoxicated. Conversely, premeditation involves forethought and planning, which may increase the risk of suicide in the near future.

Examples of premeditated behavior include:

• Contemplating the attempt days or weeks beforehand
• Researching the effects of a medication or combination of medications in terms of potential lethality
• Engaging in behavior that would decrease the likelihood of their body being discovered after the attempt
• Obtaining weapons and/or stockpiling pills
• Canvassing potential sites such as bridges or tall buildings
• Engaging in a suicide attempt “practice run”
• Leaving a suicide note or message on social media
• Making funeral arrangements, such as choosing burial clothing
• Writing a will and arranging for the custody of dependent children
• Purchasing life insurance that does not deny payment of benefits in cases of death by suicide.

Continue to: Patients with a premeditated...

Patients with a premeditated suicide attempt generally do not expect to survive and are often surprised or upset that the act was not fatal. The presence of indicators that the attempt was premeditated should direct the disposition more toward hospitalization than discharge. In assessing the impact of premeditation, it is important to gauge not just the examples listed above, but also the patient’s perception of these issues (such as potential loss of child custody). Consider how much the patient is emotionally affected by such thinking.

2. What were the consequences of the attempt?

Assessing the reason for the attempt (if any) and determining whether the inciting circumstance has changed due to the suicide attempt are an important part of the evaluation. A suicide attempt may result in reconciliation with and/or renewed support from family members or partners, who might not have been aware of the patient’s emotional distress. Such unexpected support often results in the patient exhibiting improved mood and affect, and possibly temporary resolution of suicidal thoughts. This “flight into health” may be short-lived, but it also may be enough to engage the patient in a therapeutic alliance. That may permit a discharge with safe disposition to the outpatient clinic while in the custody of a family member, partner, or close friend.

Alternatively, some people experience a troubling worsening of precipitants following a suicide attempt. Preexisting medical conditions and financial, occupational, and/or social woes may be exacerbated. Child custody determinations may be affected, assuming the patient understands the possibility of this adverse consequence. Violent methods may result in disfigurement and body image issues. Individuals from small, close-knit communities may experience stigmatization and unwanted notoriety because of their suicide attempt. Such negative consequences may render some patients more likely to make another attempt to die by suicide. It is crucial to consider how a suicide attempt may have changed the original stress that led to the attempt.

3. Which method was used?

Most fatal suicides in the US are by firearms, and many individuals who survive such attempts do so because of unfamiliarity with the weapon, gun malfunction, faulty aim, or alcohol use.^5-7 Some survivors report intending to shoot themselves in the heart, but instead suffered shoulder injuries. Unfortunately, for a patient who survives self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the sequelae of chronic pain, multiple surgical procedures, disability, and disfigurement may serve as constant negative reminders of the event. Some individuals with suicidal intent eschew the idea of using firearms because they hope to avoid having a family member be the first to discover them. Witnessing the aftermath of a fatal suicide by gunshot can induce symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in family members and/or partners.⁸

For a patient with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, always determine whether the weapon has been secured or if the patient still has access to it. Asking about weapon availability is essential during the evaluation of any patient with depression, major life crises, or other factors that may yield a desire to die; this is especially true for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Whenever readily available to such individuals, weapons need to be safely removed.

Continue to: Other self-harm methods...

Other self-harm methods with a high degree of lethality include jumping from bridges or buildings, poisonings, self-immolation, cutting, and hangings. Individuals who choose these approaches generally do not intend to survive. Many of these methods also entail premeditation, as in the case of individuals who canvass bridges and note time when traffic is light so they are less likely to be interrupted. Between 1937 and 2012, there were >1,600 deaths by suicide from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.⁹ Patients who choose highly lethal methods are often irritated during the postattempt evaluation because their plans were not fatal. Usually, patients who choose such potentially lethal methods are hospitalized initially on medical and surgical floors, and receive most of their psychiatric care from consultation psychiatrists. Following discharge, these patients may be at high risk for subsequent suicide attempts.

In the US, the most common method of attempting suicide is by overdose.⁴ Lethality is determined by the agent or combination of substances ingested, the amount taken, the person’s health status, and the length of time before they are discovered. Many patients mistakenly assume that readily available agents such as acetaminophen and aspirin are less likely to be fatal than prescription medications. Evaluators may want to assess for suicidality in individuals with erratic, risk-taking behaviors, who are at especially high risk for death. Learning about the method the patient used can help the clinician determine the imminent risk of another suicide attempt. The more potentially fatal the patient’s method, the more serious their suicide intent, and the higher the risk they will make another suicide attempt, possibly using an even more lethal method.

4. What was the intent?

“What did you want to happen when you made this attempt?” Many patients will respond that they wanted to die, sleep, not wake up, or did not care what happened. Others say it was a gesture to evoke a certain response from another person. If this is the case, it is important to know whether the desired outcome was achieved. These so-called gestures often involve making sure the intended person is aware of the attempt, often by writing a letter, sending a text, or posting on social media. Such behaviors may be exhibited by patients with personality disorders. While such attempts often are impulsive, if the attempt fails to generate the anticipated effect, the patient may try to gain more attention by escalating their suicide actions.

Conversely, if a spouse or partner reconciles with the patient solely because of a suicide attempt, this may set a pattern for future self-harm events in which the patient hopes to achieve the same outcome. Nevertheless, it is better to err for safety because some of these patients will make another attempt, just to prove that they should have been taken more seriously. An exploration of such intent can help the evaluation because even supposed “gestures” can have dangerous consequences. Acts that do not result in the desired outcome should precipitate hospitalization rather than discharge.

5. What facilitated the patient’s rescue?

“Why is this patient still alive?” Determine if the patient did anything to save themself, such as calling an ambulance, inducing emesis, telling someone what they did, or coming to the hospital on their own. If yes, asking them what changed their mind may provide information about what exists in their lives to potentially prevent future attempts, or about wishes to stay alive. These issues can be used to guide outpatient therapy.

Continue to: How does the patient feel about having survived?

When a patient is asked how they feel about having survived a suicide attempt, some will label their act “stupid” and profess embarrassment. Others exhibit future-oriented thought, which is a very good prognostic sign. More ominous is subsequent dysphoria or lamenting that “I could not even do this right.” Patients often express anger toward anyone who rescued them, especially those whose attempts were carefully planned or were discovered by accident. Some patients might also express ambivalence about having survived.

The patient’s response to this question may be shaped by their desire to avoid hospitalization, so beyond their verbal answers, be attentive to clinical cues that may suggest the patient is not being fully transparent. Anger or ambivalence about having survived, a lack of future-oriented thought, and a restricted affect despite verbalizing joy about still being alive are features that suggest psychiatric hospitalization may be warranted.

7. Has the patient made previous suicide attempts?

Compared to individuals with no previous suicide attempts, patients with a history of suicide attempts are 30 to 40 times more likely to die by suicide.² Many patients who present after a suicide attempt have tried to kill themselves multiple times. Exploring the number of past attempts, how recent the attempts were, and what dispositions were made can be of benefit. Reviewing the potential lethality of past attempts (eg, was hospitalization required, was the patient placed in an intensive care unit, and/or was intubation needed) is recommended. If outpatient care was suggested or medication prescribed, was the patient adherent? Consider asking about passive suicidal behavior, such as not seeking care for medical issues, discontinuing life-saving medication, or engaging in reckless behavior. While such behaviors may not have been classified as a suicide attempt, it might indicate a feeling of indifference toward staying alive. A patient with a past attempt, especially if recent, merits consideration for inpatient care. Once again, referring previously nonadherent patients to outpatient treatment is less likely to be effective.

8. Does the patient have a support network?

Before discharging a patient who has made a suicide attempt, consider the quality of their support network. Gauging the response of the family and friends to the patient’s attempt can be beneficial. Indifference or resentment on the part of loved ones is a bad sign. Some patients have access to support networks they either did not know were available or chose not to utilize. In other instances, after realizing how depressed the patient has been, the family might provide a new safety net. Strong religious affiliations can also be valuable because devout spirituality can be a deterrent to suicide behaviors.¹⁰ For an individual whose attempt was motivated by loneliness or feeling unloved or underappreciated, a newly realized support network can be an additional protective deterrent.

9. Does the patient have a family history of suicide?

There may be a familial component to suicide. Knowing about any suicide history in the family contributes to future therapeutic planning. The clinician may want to explore the patient’s family suicide history in detail because such information can have substantial impact on the patient’s motivation for attempting suicide. The evaluator may want to determine if the anniversary of a family suicide is coming. Triggers for a suicide attempt could include the anniversary of a death, birthdays, family-oriented holidays, and similar events. It is productive to understand how the patient feels about family members who have died by suicide. Some will empathize with the deceased, commenting that they did the “right thing.” Others, upon realizing how their own attempt affected others, will be remorseful and determined not to inflict more pain on their family. Such patients may need to be reminded of the misery associated with their family being left without them. These understandings are helpful at setting a safe disposition. However, a history of death by suicide in the family should always be thoroughly evaluated, regardless of the patient’s attitude about that death.

Continue to: Was the attempt the result of depression?

For a patient experiencing depressive symptoms, the prognosis is less positive; they are more likely to harbor serious intent, premeditation, hopelessness, and social isolation, and less likely to express future-oriented thought. They often exhibit a temporary “flight into health.” Such progress is often transitory and may not represent recovery. Because mood disorders may still be present despite a temporary improvement, inpatient and pharmacologic treatment may be needed. If a patient’s suicide attempt occurred as a result of severe depression, it is possible they will make another suicide attempt unless their depression is addressed in a safe and secure setting, such as inpatient hospitalization, or through close family observation while the patient is receiving intensive outpatient treatment.

11. Does the patient have a psychotic disorder?

Many patients with a psychotic illness die following their first attempt without ever having contact with a mental health professional.¹¹ Features of psychosis might include malevolent auditory hallucinations that suggest self-destruction.¹¹ Such “voices” can be intense and self-deprecating; many patients with this type of hallucination report having made a suicide attempt “just to make the voices stop.”

Symptoms of paranoia can make it less likely for individuals with psychosis to confide in family members, friends, or medical personnel. Religious elements are often of a delusional nature and can be dangerous. Psychosis is more difficult to hide than depression and the presence of psychoses concurrent with major depressive disorder (MDD) increases the probability of suicidality.¹¹ Psychosis secondary to substance use may diminish inhibitions and heighten impulsivity, thereby exacerbating the likelihood of self-harm. Usually, the presence of psychotic features precipitating or following a suicide attempt leads to psychiatric hospitalization.

12. Is the patient in a high-risk demographic group?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, it helps to consider not just what they did, but who they are. Specifically, does the individual belong to a demographic group that traditionally has a high rate of suicide? For example, patients who are Native American or Alaska Natives warrant extra caution.² Older White males, especially those who are divorced, widowed, retired, and/or have chronic health problems, are also at greater risk. Compared to the general population, individuals age >80 have a massively elevated chance for self-induced death.¹² Some of the reasons include:

• medical comorbidities make surviving an attempt less likely
• access to large amounts of medications
• more irreversible issues, such as chronic pain, disability, or widowhood
• living alone, which may delay discovery.

Patients who are members of any of these demographic groups may deserve serious consideration for inpatient psychiatric admission, regardless of other factors.

Continue to: Were drugs or alcohol involved?

This factor is unique in that it is both a chronic risk factor (SUDs) and a warning sign for imminent suicide, as in the case of an individual who gets intoxicated to disinhibit their fear of death so they can attempt suicide. Alcohol use disorders are associated with depression and suicide. Overdoses by fentanyl and other opiates have become more frequent.¹³ In many cases, fatalities are unintentional because users overestimate their tolerance or ingest contaminated substances.¹⁴ Disinhibition by alcohol and/or other drugs is a risk factor for attempting suicide and can intensify the depth of MDD. Some patients will ingest substances before an attempt just to give them the courage to act; many think of suicide only when intoxicated. Toxicology screens are indicated as part of the evaluation after a suicide attempt.

Depressive and suicidal thoughts often occur in people “coming down” from cocaine or other stimulants. These circumstances require determining whether to refer the patient for treatment for an SUD or psychiatric hospitalization.

In summary, getting intoxicated solely to diminish anxiety about suicide is a dangerous feature, whereas attempting suicide due to intoxication is less concerning. The latter patient may not consider suicide unless they become intoxicated again. When available, dual diagnosis treatment facilities can be an appropriate referral for such patients. Emergency department holding beds can allow these individuals to detoxify prior to the evaluation.

14. Does the patient have future-oriented thoughts?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, the presence of future planning and anticipation can be reassuring, but these features should be carefully assessed.^14-16

After-the-fact comments may be more reliable when a patient offers them spontaneously, as opposed to in response to direct questioning.^15-17 An inability to produce future-oriented thoughts is linked to long-term suicide risks.^15-17 Patients may fabricate future plans as a way to avoid psychiatric hospitalization, so be wary of plans that are generalized, less detailed, and only mentioned when an inpatient disposition is proposed. A patient may in fact have been dreading events they now profess to be eagerly awaiting. Corroboration from family members can be helpful in determining how involved the patient has been in preparing for future events. More concerning are patients without future plans or who exhibit anhedonia regarding upcoming events that previously were of interest. When assessing for future-oriented thoughts, consider:

• the specificity of the future plans
• corroboration from the family and others about the patient’s previous investment in the upcoming event
• whether the patient mentions such plans spontaneously or only in response to direct questioning
• the patient’s emotional expression or affect when discussing their future
• whether such plans are reasonable, grandiose, and/or unrealistic.

Bottom Line

When assessing a patient after a suicide attempt, both the patient’s presentation and history and the clinician’s instincts are important. Careful consideration of the method, stated intent, premeditation vs impulsivity, feelings about having survived, presence of psychiatric illness, high-risk demographic, postattempt demeanor and affect, quality of support, presence of self-rescue behaviors, future-oriented thoughts, and other factors can help in making the appropriate disposition.

Related Resources

• Kim H, Kim Y, Shin MH, et al. Early psychiatric referral after attempted suicide helps prevent suicide reattempts: a longitudinal national cohort study in South Korea. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:607892. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.607892
• Michaud L, Berva S, Ostertag L, et al. When to discharge and when to voluntary or compulsory hospitalize? Factors associated with treatment decision after self-harm. Psychiatry Res. 2022;317:114810. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114810

In 2021, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ Suicide resulted in 49,000 US deaths during 2021; it was the second most common cause of death in individuals age 10 to 34, and the fifth leading cause among children.^1,2 Women are 3 to 4 times more likely than men to attempt suicide, but men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide.²

The evaluation of patients with suicidal ideation who have not made an attempt generally involves assessing 4 factors: the specific plan, access to lethal means, any recent social stressors, and the presence of a psychiatric disorder.³ The clinician should also assess which potential deterrents, such as religious beliefs or dependent children, might be present.

Mental health clinicians are often called upon to evaluate a patient after a suicide attempt to assess intent for continued self-harm and to determine appropriate disposition. Such an evaluation must consider multiple factors, including the method used, premeditation, consequences of the attempt, the presence of severe depression and/or psychosis, and the role of substance use. Assessment after a suicide attempt differs from the examination of individuals who harbor suicidal thoughts but have not made an attempt; the latter group may be more likely to respond to interventions such as intensive outpatient care, mobilization of family support, and religious proscriptions against suicide. However, for patients who make an attempt to end their life, whatever potential safeguards or deterrents to suicide that were in place obviously did not prevent the self-harm act. The consequences of the attempt, such as disabling injuries or medical complications, and possible involuntary commitment, need to be considered. Assessment of the patient’s feelings about having survived the attempt is important because the psychological impact of the attempt on family members may serve to intensify the patient’s depression and make a subsequent attempt more likely.

Many individuals who think of suicide have communicated self-harm thoughts or intentions, but such comments are often minimized or ignored. There is a common but erroneous belief that if patients are encouraged to discuss thoughts of self-harm, they will be more likely to act upon them. Because the opposite is true,⁴ clinicians should ask vulnerable patients about suicidal ideation or intent. Importantly, noncompliance with life-saving medical care, risk-taking behaviors, and substance use may also signal a desire for self-harm. Passive thoughts of death, typified by comments such as “I don’t care whether I wake up or not,” should also be elicited. Many patients who think of suicide speak of being in a “bad place” where reason and logic give way to an intense desire to end their misery.

The evaluation of a patient who has attempted suicide is an important component of providing psychiatric care. This article reflects our 45 years of evaluating such patients. As such, it reflects our clinical experience and is not evidence-based. We offer a checklist of 14 questions that we have found helpful when determining if it would be best for a patient to receive inpatient psychiatric hospitalization or a discharge referral for outpatient care (Table). Questions 1 through 6 are specific for patients who have made a suicide attempt, while questions 7 through 14 are helpful for assessing global risk factors for suicide.

1. Was the attempt premeditated?

Determining premeditation vs impulsivity is an essential element of the assessment following a suicide attempt. Many such acts may occur without forethought in response to an unexpected stressor, such as an altercation between partners or family conflicts. Impulsive attempts can occur when an individual is involved in a distressing event and/or while intoxicated. Conversely, premeditation involves forethought and planning, which may increase the risk of suicide in the near future.

Examples of premeditated behavior include:

• Contemplating the attempt days or weeks beforehand
• Researching the effects of a medication or combination of medications in terms of potential lethality
• Engaging in behavior that would decrease the likelihood of their body being discovered after the attempt
• Obtaining weapons and/or stockpiling pills
• Canvassing potential sites such as bridges or tall buildings
• Engaging in a suicide attempt “practice run”
• Leaving a suicide note or message on social media
• Making funeral arrangements, such as choosing burial clothing
• Writing a will and arranging for the custody of dependent children
• Purchasing life insurance that does not deny payment of benefits in cases of death by suicide.

Continue to: Patients with a premeditated...

Patients with a premeditated suicide attempt generally do not expect to survive and are often surprised or upset that the act was not fatal. The presence of indicators that the attempt was premeditated should direct the disposition more toward hospitalization than discharge. In assessing the impact of premeditation, it is important to gauge not just the examples listed above, but also the patient’s perception of these issues (such as potential loss of child custody). Consider how much the patient is emotionally affected by such thinking.

2. What were the consequences of the attempt?

Assessing the reason for the attempt (if any) and determining whether the inciting circumstance has changed due to the suicide attempt are an important part of the evaluation. A suicide attempt may result in reconciliation with and/or renewed support from family members or partners, who might not have been aware of the patient’s emotional distress. Such unexpected support often results in the patient exhibiting improved mood and affect, and possibly temporary resolution of suicidal thoughts. This “flight into health” may be short-lived, but it also may be enough to engage the patient in a therapeutic alliance. That may permit a discharge with safe disposition to the outpatient clinic while in the custody of a family member, partner, or close friend.

Alternatively, some people experience a troubling worsening of precipitants following a suicide attempt. Preexisting medical conditions and financial, occupational, and/or social woes may be exacerbated. Child custody determinations may be affected, assuming the patient understands the possibility of this adverse consequence. Violent methods may result in disfigurement and body image issues. Individuals from small, close-knit communities may experience stigmatization and unwanted notoriety because of their suicide attempt. Such negative consequences may render some patients more likely to make another attempt to die by suicide. It is crucial to consider how a suicide attempt may have changed the original stress that led to the attempt.

3. Which method was used?

Most fatal suicides in the US are by firearms, and many individuals who survive such attempts do so because of unfamiliarity with the weapon, gun malfunction, faulty aim, or alcohol use.^5-7 Some survivors report intending to shoot themselves in the heart, but instead suffered shoulder injuries. Unfortunately, for a patient who survives self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the sequelae of chronic pain, multiple surgical procedures, disability, and disfigurement may serve as constant negative reminders of the event. Some individuals with suicidal intent eschew the idea of using firearms because they hope to avoid having a family member be the first to discover them. Witnessing the aftermath of a fatal suicide by gunshot can induce symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in family members and/or partners.⁸

For a patient with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, always determine whether the weapon has been secured or if the patient still has access to it. Asking about weapon availability is essential during the evaluation of any patient with depression, major life crises, or other factors that may yield a desire to die; this is especially true for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Whenever readily available to such individuals, weapons need to be safely removed.

Continue to: Other self-harm methods...

Other self-harm methods with a high degree of lethality include jumping from bridges or buildings, poisonings, self-immolation, cutting, and hangings. Individuals who choose these approaches generally do not intend to survive. Many of these methods also entail premeditation, as in the case of individuals who canvass bridges and note time when traffic is light so they are less likely to be interrupted. Between 1937 and 2012, there were >1,600 deaths by suicide from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.⁹ Patients who choose highly lethal methods are often irritated during the postattempt evaluation because their plans were not fatal. Usually, patients who choose such potentially lethal methods are hospitalized initially on medical and surgical floors, and receive most of their psychiatric care from consultation psychiatrists. Following discharge, these patients may be at high risk for subsequent suicide attempts.

In the US, the most common method of attempting suicide is by overdose.⁴ Lethality is determined by the agent or combination of substances ingested, the amount taken, the person’s health status, and the length of time before they are discovered. Many patients mistakenly assume that readily available agents such as acetaminophen and aspirin are less likely to be fatal than prescription medications. Evaluators may want to assess for suicidality in individuals with erratic, risk-taking behaviors, who are at especially high risk for death. Learning about the method the patient used can help the clinician determine the imminent risk of another suicide attempt. The more potentially fatal the patient’s method, the more serious their suicide intent, and the higher the risk they will make another suicide attempt, possibly using an even more lethal method.

4. What was the intent?

“What did you want to happen when you made this attempt?” Many patients will respond that they wanted to die, sleep, not wake up, or did not care what happened. Others say it was a gesture to evoke a certain response from another person. If this is the case, it is important to know whether the desired outcome was achieved. These so-called gestures often involve making sure the intended person is aware of the attempt, often by writing a letter, sending a text, or posting on social media. Such behaviors may be exhibited by patients with personality disorders. While such attempts often are impulsive, if the attempt fails to generate the anticipated effect, the patient may try to gain more attention by escalating their suicide actions.

Conversely, if a spouse or partner reconciles with the patient solely because of a suicide attempt, this may set a pattern for future self-harm events in which the patient hopes to achieve the same outcome. Nevertheless, it is better to err for safety because some of these patients will make another attempt, just to prove that they should have been taken more seriously. An exploration of such intent can help the evaluation because even supposed “gestures” can have dangerous consequences. Acts that do not result in the desired outcome should precipitate hospitalization rather than discharge.

5. What facilitated the patient’s rescue?

“Why is this patient still alive?” Determine if the patient did anything to save themself, such as calling an ambulance, inducing emesis, telling someone what they did, or coming to the hospital on their own. If yes, asking them what changed their mind may provide information about what exists in their lives to potentially prevent future attempts, or about wishes to stay alive. These issues can be used to guide outpatient therapy.

Continue to: How does the patient feel about having survived?

When a patient is asked how they feel about having survived a suicide attempt, some will label their act “stupid” and profess embarrassment. Others exhibit future-oriented thought, which is a very good prognostic sign. More ominous is subsequent dysphoria or lamenting that “I could not even do this right.” Patients often express anger toward anyone who rescued them, especially those whose attempts were carefully planned or were discovered by accident. Some patients might also express ambivalence about having survived.

The patient’s response to this question may be shaped by their desire to avoid hospitalization, so beyond their verbal answers, be attentive to clinical cues that may suggest the patient is not being fully transparent. Anger or ambivalence about having survived, a lack of future-oriented thought, and a restricted affect despite verbalizing joy about still being alive are features that suggest psychiatric hospitalization may be warranted.

7. Has the patient made previous suicide attempts?

Compared to individuals with no previous suicide attempts, patients with a history of suicide attempts are 30 to 40 times more likely to die by suicide.² Many patients who present after a suicide attempt have tried to kill themselves multiple times. Exploring the number of past attempts, how recent the attempts were, and what dispositions were made can be of benefit. Reviewing the potential lethality of past attempts (eg, was hospitalization required, was the patient placed in an intensive care unit, and/or was intubation needed) is recommended. If outpatient care was suggested or medication prescribed, was the patient adherent? Consider asking about passive suicidal behavior, such as not seeking care for medical issues, discontinuing life-saving medication, or engaging in reckless behavior. While such behaviors may not have been classified as a suicide attempt, it might indicate a feeling of indifference toward staying alive. A patient with a past attempt, especially if recent, merits consideration for inpatient care. Once again, referring previously nonadherent patients to outpatient treatment is less likely to be effective.

8. Does the patient have a support network?

Before discharging a patient who has made a suicide attempt, consider the quality of their support network. Gauging the response of the family and friends to the patient’s attempt can be beneficial. Indifference or resentment on the part of loved ones is a bad sign. Some patients have access to support networks they either did not know were available or chose not to utilize. In other instances, after realizing how depressed the patient has been, the family might provide a new safety net. Strong religious affiliations can also be valuable because devout spirituality can be a deterrent to suicide behaviors.¹⁰ For an individual whose attempt was motivated by loneliness or feeling unloved or underappreciated, a newly realized support network can be an additional protective deterrent.

9. Does the patient have a family history of suicide?

There may be a familial component to suicide. Knowing about any suicide history in the family contributes to future therapeutic planning. The clinician may want to explore the patient’s family suicide history in detail because such information can have substantial impact on the patient’s motivation for attempting suicide. The evaluator may want to determine if the anniversary of a family suicide is coming. Triggers for a suicide attempt could include the anniversary of a death, birthdays, family-oriented holidays, and similar events. It is productive to understand how the patient feels about family members who have died by suicide. Some will empathize with the deceased, commenting that they did the “right thing.” Others, upon realizing how their own attempt affected others, will be remorseful and determined not to inflict more pain on their family. Such patients may need to be reminded of the misery associated with their family being left without them. These understandings are helpful at setting a safe disposition. However, a history of death by suicide in the family should always be thoroughly evaluated, regardless of the patient’s attitude about that death.

Continue to: Was the attempt the result of depression?

For a patient experiencing depressive symptoms, the prognosis is less positive; they are more likely to harbor serious intent, premeditation, hopelessness, and social isolation, and less likely to express future-oriented thought. They often exhibit a temporary “flight into health.” Such progress is often transitory and may not represent recovery. Because mood disorders may still be present despite a temporary improvement, inpatient and pharmacologic treatment may be needed. If a patient’s suicide attempt occurred as a result of severe depression, it is possible they will make another suicide attempt unless their depression is addressed in a safe and secure setting, such as inpatient hospitalization, or through close family observation while the patient is receiving intensive outpatient treatment.

11. Does the patient have a psychotic disorder?

Many patients with a psychotic illness die following their first attempt without ever having contact with a mental health professional.¹¹ Features of psychosis might include malevolent auditory hallucinations that suggest self-destruction.¹¹ Such “voices” can be intense and self-deprecating; many patients with this type of hallucination report having made a suicide attempt “just to make the voices stop.”

Symptoms of paranoia can make it less likely for individuals with psychosis to confide in family members, friends, or medical personnel. Religious elements are often of a delusional nature and can be dangerous. Psychosis is more difficult to hide than depression and the presence of psychoses concurrent with major depressive disorder (MDD) increases the probability of suicidality.¹¹ Psychosis secondary to substance use may diminish inhibitions and heighten impulsivity, thereby exacerbating the likelihood of self-harm. Usually, the presence of psychotic features precipitating or following a suicide attempt leads to psychiatric hospitalization.

12. Is the patient in a high-risk demographic group?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, it helps to consider not just what they did, but who they are. Specifically, does the individual belong to a demographic group that traditionally has a high rate of suicide? For example, patients who are Native American or Alaska Natives warrant extra caution.² Older White males, especially those who are divorced, widowed, retired, and/or have chronic health problems, are also at greater risk. Compared to the general population, individuals age >80 have a massively elevated chance for self-induced death.¹² Some of the reasons include:

• medical comorbidities make surviving an attempt less likely
• access to large amounts of medications
• more irreversible issues, such as chronic pain, disability, or widowhood
• living alone, which may delay discovery.

Patients who are members of any of these demographic groups may deserve serious consideration for inpatient psychiatric admission, regardless of other factors.

Continue to: Were drugs or alcohol involved?

This factor is unique in that it is both a chronic risk factor (SUDs) and a warning sign for imminent suicide, as in the case of an individual who gets intoxicated to disinhibit their fear of death so they can attempt suicide. Alcohol use disorders are associated with depression and suicide. Overdoses by fentanyl and other opiates have become more frequent.¹³ In many cases, fatalities are unintentional because users overestimate their tolerance or ingest contaminated substances.¹⁴ Disinhibition by alcohol and/or other drugs is a risk factor for attempting suicide and can intensify the depth of MDD. Some patients will ingest substances before an attempt just to give them the courage to act; many think of suicide only when intoxicated. Toxicology screens are indicated as part of the evaluation after a suicide attempt.

Depressive and suicidal thoughts often occur in people “coming down” from cocaine or other stimulants. These circumstances require determining whether to refer the patient for treatment for an SUD or psychiatric hospitalization.

In summary, getting intoxicated solely to diminish anxiety about suicide is a dangerous feature, whereas attempting suicide due to intoxication is less concerning. The latter patient may not consider suicide unless they become intoxicated again. When available, dual diagnosis treatment facilities can be an appropriate referral for such patients. Emergency department holding beds can allow these individuals to detoxify prior to the evaluation.

14. Does the patient have future-oriented thoughts?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, the presence of future planning and anticipation can be reassuring, but these features should be carefully assessed.^14-16

After-the-fact comments may be more reliable when a patient offers them spontaneously, as opposed to in response to direct questioning.^15-17 An inability to produce future-oriented thoughts is linked to long-term suicide risks.^15-17 Patients may fabricate future plans as a way to avoid psychiatric hospitalization, so be wary of plans that are generalized, less detailed, and only mentioned when an inpatient disposition is proposed. A patient may in fact have been dreading events they now profess to be eagerly awaiting. Corroboration from family members can be helpful in determining how involved the patient has been in preparing for future events. More concerning are patients without future plans or who exhibit anhedonia regarding upcoming events that previously were of interest. When assessing for future-oriented thoughts, consider:

• the specificity of the future plans
• corroboration from the family and others about the patient’s previous investment in the upcoming event
• whether the patient mentions such plans spontaneously or only in response to direct questioning
• the patient’s emotional expression or affect when discussing their future
• whether such plans are reasonable, grandiose, and/or unrealistic.

Bottom Line

When assessing a patient after a suicide attempt, both the patient’s presentation and history and the clinician’s instincts are important. Careful consideration of the method, stated intent, premeditation vs impulsivity, feelings about having survived, presence of psychiatric illness, high-risk demographic, postattempt demeanor and affect, quality of support, presence of self-rescue behaviors, future-oriented thoughts, and other factors can help in making the appropriate disposition.

Related Resources

• Kim H, Kim Y, Shin MH, et al. Early psychiatric referral after attempted suicide helps prevent suicide reattempts: a longitudinal national cohort study in South Korea. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:607892. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.607892
• Michaud L, Berva S, Ostertag L, et al. When to discharge and when to voluntary or compulsory hospitalize? Factors associated with treatment decision after self-harm. Psychiatry Res. 2022;317:114810. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114810

In 2021, suicide was the 11th leading cause of death in the United States.¹ Suicide resulted in 49,000 US deaths during 2021; it was the second most common cause of death in individuals age 10 to 34, and the fifth leading cause among children.^1,2 Women are 3 to 4 times more likely than men to attempt suicide, but men are 4 times more likely to die by suicide.²

The evaluation of patients with suicidal ideation who have not made an attempt generally involves assessing 4 factors: the specific plan, access to lethal means, any recent social stressors, and the presence of a psychiatric disorder.³ The clinician should also assess which potential deterrents, such as religious beliefs or dependent children, might be present.

Mental health clinicians are often called upon to evaluate a patient after a suicide attempt to assess intent for continued self-harm and to determine appropriate disposition. Such an evaluation must consider multiple factors, including the method used, premeditation, consequences of the attempt, the presence of severe depression and/or psychosis, and the role of substance use. Assessment after a suicide attempt differs from the examination of individuals who harbor suicidal thoughts but have not made an attempt; the latter group may be more likely to respond to interventions such as intensive outpatient care, mobilization of family support, and religious proscriptions against suicide. However, for patients who make an attempt to end their life, whatever potential safeguards or deterrents to suicide that were in place obviously did not prevent the self-harm act. The consequences of the attempt, such as disabling injuries or medical complications, and possible involuntary commitment, need to be considered. Assessment of the patient’s feelings about having survived the attempt is important because the psychological impact of the attempt on family members may serve to intensify the patient’s depression and make a subsequent attempt more likely.

Many individuals who think of suicide have communicated self-harm thoughts or intentions, but such comments are often minimized or ignored. There is a common but erroneous belief that if patients are encouraged to discuss thoughts of self-harm, they will be more likely to act upon them. Because the opposite is true,⁴ clinicians should ask vulnerable patients about suicidal ideation or intent. Importantly, noncompliance with life-saving medical care, risk-taking behaviors, and substance use may also signal a desire for self-harm. Passive thoughts of death, typified by comments such as “I don’t care whether I wake up or not,” should also be elicited. Many patients who think of suicide speak of being in a “bad place” where reason and logic give way to an intense desire to end their misery.

The evaluation of a patient who has attempted suicide is an important component of providing psychiatric care. This article reflects our 45 years of evaluating such patients. As such, it reflects our clinical experience and is not evidence-based. We offer a checklist of 14 questions that we have found helpful when determining if it would be best for a patient to receive inpatient psychiatric hospitalization or a discharge referral for outpatient care (Table). Questions 1 through 6 are specific for patients who have made a suicide attempt, while questions 7 through 14 are helpful for assessing global risk factors for suicide.

1. Was the attempt premeditated?

Determining premeditation vs impulsivity is an essential element of the assessment following a suicide attempt. Many such acts may occur without forethought in response to an unexpected stressor, such as an altercation between partners or family conflicts. Impulsive attempts can occur when an individual is involved in a distressing event and/or while intoxicated. Conversely, premeditation involves forethought and planning, which may increase the risk of suicide in the near future.

Examples of premeditated behavior include:

• Contemplating the attempt days or weeks beforehand
• Researching the effects of a medication or combination of medications in terms of potential lethality
• Engaging in behavior that would decrease the likelihood of their body being discovered after the attempt
• Obtaining weapons and/or stockpiling pills
• Canvassing potential sites such as bridges or tall buildings
• Engaging in a suicide attempt “practice run”
• Leaving a suicide note or message on social media
• Making funeral arrangements, such as choosing burial clothing
• Writing a will and arranging for the custody of dependent children
• Purchasing life insurance that does not deny payment of benefits in cases of death by suicide.

Continue to: Patients with a premeditated...

Patients with a premeditated suicide attempt generally do not expect to survive and are often surprised or upset that the act was not fatal. The presence of indicators that the attempt was premeditated should direct the disposition more toward hospitalization than discharge. In assessing the impact of premeditation, it is important to gauge not just the examples listed above, but also the patient’s perception of these issues (such as potential loss of child custody). Consider how much the patient is emotionally affected by such thinking.

2. What were the consequences of the attempt?

Assessing the reason for the attempt (if any) and determining whether the inciting circumstance has changed due to the suicide attempt are an important part of the evaluation. A suicide attempt may result in reconciliation with and/or renewed support from family members or partners, who might not have been aware of the patient’s emotional distress. Such unexpected support often results in the patient exhibiting improved mood and affect, and possibly temporary resolution of suicidal thoughts. This “flight into health” may be short-lived, but it also may be enough to engage the patient in a therapeutic alliance. That may permit a discharge with safe disposition to the outpatient clinic while in the custody of a family member, partner, or close friend.

Alternatively, some people experience a troubling worsening of precipitants following a suicide attempt. Preexisting medical conditions and financial, occupational, and/or social woes may be exacerbated. Child custody determinations may be affected, assuming the patient understands the possibility of this adverse consequence. Violent methods may result in disfigurement and body image issues. Individuals from small, close-knit communities may experience stigmatization and unwanted notoriety because of their suicide attempt. Such negative consequences may render some patients more likely to make another attempt to die by suicide. It is crucial to consider how a suicide attempt may have changed the original stress that led to the attempt.

3. Which method was used?

Most fatal suicides in the US are by firearms, and many individuals who survive such attempts do so because of unfamiliarity with the weapon, gun malfunction, faulty aim, or alcohol use.^5-7 Some survivors report intending to shoot themselves in the heart, but instead suffered shoulder injuries. Unfortunately, for a patient who survives self-inflicted gunshot wounds, the sequelae of chronic pain, multiple surgical procedures, disability, and disfigurement may serve as constant negative reminders of the event. Some individuals with suicidal intent eschew the idea of using firearms because they hope to avoid having a family member be the first to discover them. Witnessing the aftermath of a fatal suicide by gunshot can induce symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in family members and/or partners.⁸

For a patient with self-inflicted gunshot wounds, always determine whether the weapon has been secured or if the patient still has access to it. Asking about weapon availability is essential during the evaluation of any patient with depression, major life crises, or other factors that may yield a desire to die; this is especially true for individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs). Whenever readily available to such individuals, weapons need to be safely removed.

Continue to: Other self-harm methods...

Other self-harm methods with a high degree of lethality include jumping from bridges or buildings, poisonings, self-immolation, cutting, and hangings. Individuals who choose these approaches generally do not intend to survive. Many of these methods also entail premeditation, as in the case of individuals who canvass bridges and note time when traffic is light so they are less likely to be interrupted. Between 1937 and 2012, there were >1,600 deaths by suicide from San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge.⁹ Patients who choose highly lethal methods are often irritated during the postattempt evaluation because their plans were not fatal. Usually, patients who choose such potentially lethal methods are hospitalized initially on medical and surgical floors, and receive most of their psychiatric care from consultation psychiatrists. Following discharge, these patients may be at high risk for subsequent suicide attempts.

In the US, the most common method of attempting suicide is by overdose.⁴ Lethality is determined by the agent or combination of substances ingested, the amount taken, the person’s health status, and the length of time before they are discovered. Many patients mistakenly assume that readily available agents such as acetaminophen and aspirin are less likely to be fatal than prescription medications. Evaluators may want to assess for suicidality in individuals with erratic, risk-taking behaviors, who are at especially high risk for death. Learning about the method the patient used can help the clinician determine the imminent risk of another suicide attempt. The more potentially fatal the patient’s method, the more serious their suicide intent, and the higher the risk they will make another suicide attempt, possibly using an even more lethal method.

4. What was the intent?

“What did you want to happen when you made this attempt?” Many patients will respond that they wanted to die, sleep, not wake up, or did not care what happened. Others say it was a gesture to evoke a certain response from another person. If this is the case, it is important to know whether the desired outcome was achieved. These so-called gestures often involve making sure the intended person is aware of the attempt, often by writing a letter, sending a text, or posting on social media. Such behaviors may be exhibited by patients with personality disorders. While such attempts often are impulsive, if the attempt fails to generate the anticipated effect, the patient may try to gain more attention by escalating their suicide actions.

Conversely, if a spouse or partner reconciles with the patient solely because of a suicide attempt, this may set a pattern for future self-harm events in which the patient hopes to achieve the same outcome. Nevertheless, it is better to err for safety because some of these patients will make another attempt, just to prove that they should have been taken more seriously. An exploration of such intent can help the evaluation because even supposed “gestures” can have dangerous consequences. Acts that do not result in the desired outcome should precipitate hospitalization rather than discharge.

5. What facilitated the patient’s rescue?

“Why is this patient still alive?” Determine if the patient did anything to save themself, such as calling an ambulance, inducing emesis, telling someone what they did, or coming to the hospital on their own. If yes, asking them what changed their mind may provide information about what exists in their lives to potentially prevent future attempts, or about wishes to stay alive. These issues can be used to guide outpatient therapy.

Continue to: How does the patient feel about having survived?

When a patient is asked how they feel about having survived a suicide attempt, some will label their act “stupid” and profess embarrassment. Others exhibit future-oriented thought, which is a very good prognostic sign. More ominous is subsequent dysphoria or lamenting that “I could not even do this right.” Patients often express anger toward anyone who rescued them, especially those whose attempts were carefully planned or were discovered by accident. Some patients might also express ambivalence about having survived.

The patient’s response to this question may be shaped by their desire to avoid hospitalization, so beyond their verbal answers, be attentive to clinical cues that may suggest the patient is not being fully transparent. Anger or ambivalence about having survived, a lack of future-oriented thought, and a restricted affect despite verbalizing joy about still being alive are features that suggest psychiatric hospitalization may be warranted.

7. Has the patient made previous suicide attempts?

Compared to individuals with no previous suicide attempts, patients with a history of suicide attempts are 30 to 40 times more likely to die by suicide.² Many patients who present after a suicide attempt have tried to kill themselves multiple times. Exploring the number of past attempts, how recent the attempts were, and what dispositions were made can be of benefit. Reviewing the potential lethality of past attempts (eg, was hospitalization required, was the patient placed in an intensive care unit, and/or was intubation needed) is recommended. If outpatient care was suggested or medication prescribed, was the patient adherent? Consider asking about passive suicidal behavior, such as not seeking care for medical issues, discontinuing life-saving medication, or engaging in reckless behavior. While such behaviors may not have been classified as a suicide attempt, it might indicate a feeling of indifference toward staying alive. A patient with a past attempt, especially if recent, merits consideration for inpatient care. Once again, referring previously nonadherent patients to outpatient treatment is less likely to be effective.

8. Does the patient have a support network?

Before discharging a patient who has made a suicide attempt, consider the quality of their support network. Gauging the response of the family and friends to the patient’s attempt can be beneficial. Indifference or resentment on the part of loved ones is a bad sign. Some patients have access to support networks they either did not know were available or chose not to utilize. In other instances, after realizing how depressed the patient has been, the family might provide a new safety net. Strong religious affiliations can also be valuable because devout spirituality can be a deterrent to suicide behaviors.¹⁰ For an individual whose attempt was motivated by loneliness or feeling unloved or underappreciated, a newly realized support network can be an additional protective deterrent.

9. Does the patient have a family history of suicide?

There may be a familial component to suicide. Knowing about any suicide history in the family contributes to future therapeutic planning. The clinician may want to explore the patient’s family suicide history in detail because such information can have substantial impact on the patient’s motivation for attempting suicide. The evaluator may want to determine if the anniversary of a family suicide is coming. Triggers for a suicide attempt could include the anniversary of a death, birthdays, family-oriented holidays, and similar events. It is productive to understand how the patient feels about family members who have died by suicide. Some will empathize with the deceased, commenting that they did the “right thing.” Others, upon realizing how their own attempt affected others, will be remorseful and determined not to inflict more pain on their family. Such patients may need to be reminded of the misery associated with their family being left without them. These understandings are helpful at setting a safe disposition. However, a history of death by suicide in the family should always be thoroughly evaluated, regardless of the patient’s attitude about that death.

Continue to: Was the attempt the result of depression?

For a patient experiencing depressive symptoms, the prognosis is less positive; they are more likely to harbor serious intent, premeditation, hopelessness, and social isolation, and less likely to express future-oriented thought. They often exhibit a temporary “flight into health.” Such progress is often transitory and may not represent recovery. Because mood disorders may still be present despite a temporary improvement, inpatient and pharmacologic treatment may be needed. If a patient’s suicide attempt occurred as a result of severe depression, it is possible they will make another suicide attempt unless their depression is addressed in a safe and secure setting, such as inpatient hospitalization, or through close family observation while the patient is receiving intensive outpatient treatment.

11. Does the patient have a psychotic disorder?

Many patients with a psychotic illness die following their first attempt without ever having contact with a mental health professional.¹¹ Features of psychosis might include malevolent auditory hallucinations that suggest self-destruction.¹¹ Such “voices” can be intense and self-deprecating; many patients with this type of hallucination report having made a suicide attempt “just to make the voices stop.”

Symptoms of paranoia can make it less likely for individuals with psychosis to confide in family members, friends, or medical personnel. Religious elements are often of a delusional nature and can be dangerous. Psychosis is more difficult to hide than depression and the presence of psychoses concurrent with major depressive disorder (MDD) increases the probability of suicidality.¹¹ Psychosis secondary to substance use may diminish inhibitions and heighten impulsivity, thereby exacerbating the likelihood of self-harm. Usually, the presence of psychotic features precipitating or following a suicide attempt leads to psychiatric hospitalization.

12. Is the patient in a high-risk demographic group?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, it helps to consider not just what they did, but who they are. Specifically, does the individual belong to a demographic group that traditionally has a high rate of suicide? For example, patients who are Native American or Alaska Natives warrant extra caution.² Older White males, especially those who are divorced, widowed, retired, and/or have chronic health problems, are also at greater risk. Compared to the general population, individuals age >80 have a massively elevated chance for self-induced death.¹² Some of the reasons include:

• medical comorbidities make surviving an attempt less likely
• access to large amounts of medications
• more irreversible issues, such as chronic pain, disability, or widowhood
• living alone, which may delay discovery.

Patients who are members of any of these demographic groups may deserve serious consideration for inpatient psychiatric admission, regardless of other factors.

Continue to: Were drugs or alcohol involved?

This factor is unique in that it is both a chronic risk factor (SUDs) and a warning sign for imminent suicide, as in the case of an individual who gets intoxicated to disinhibit their fear of death so they can attempt suicide. Alcohol use disorders are associated with depression and suicide. Overdoses by fentanyl and other opiates have become more frequent.¹³ In many cases, fatalities are unintentional because users overestimate their tolerance or ingest contaminated substances.¹⁴ Disinhibition by alcohol and/or other drugs is a risk factor for attempting suicide and can intensify the depth of MDD. Some patients will ingest substances before an attempt just to give them the courage to act; many think of suicide only when intoxicated. Toxicology screens are indicated as part of the evaluation after a suicide attempt.

Depressive and suicidal thoughts often occur in people “coming down” from cocaine or other stimulants. These circumstances require determining whether to refer the patient for treatment for an SUD or psychiatric hospitalization.

In summary, getting intoxicated solely to diminish anxiety about suicide is a dangerous feature, whereas attempting suicide due to intoxication is less concerning. The latter patient may not consider suicide unless they become intoxicated again. When available, dual diagnosis treatment facilities can be an appropriate referral for such patients. Emergency department holding beds can allow these individuals to detoxify prior to the evaluation.

14. Does the patient have future-oriented thoughts?

When evaluating a patient who has attempted suicide, the presence of future planning and anticipation can be reassuring, but these features should be carefully assessed.^14-16

After-the-fact comments may be more reliable when a patient offers them spontaneously, as opposed to in response to direct questioning.^15-17 An inability to produce future-oriented thoughts is linked to long-term suicide risks.^15-17 Patients may fabricate future plans as a way to avoid psychiatric hospitalization, so be wary of plans that are generalized, less detailed, and only mentioned when an inpatient disposition is proposed. A patient may in fact have been dreading events they now profess to be eagerly awaiting. Corroboration from family members can be helpful in determining how involved the patient has been in preparing for future events. More concerning are patients without future plans or who exhibit anhedonia regarding upcoming events that previously were of interest. When assessing for future-oriented thoughts, consider:

• the specificity of the future plans
• corroboration from the family and others about the patient’s previous investment in the upcoming event
• whether the patient mentions such plans spontaneously or only in response to direct questioning
• the patient’s emotional expression or affect when discussing their future
• whether such plans are reasonable, grandiose, and/or unrealistic.

Bottom Line

When assessing a patient after a suicide attempt, both the patient’s presentation and history and the clinician’s instincts are important. Careful consideration of the method, stated intent, premeditation vs impulsivity, feelings about having survived, presence of psychiatric illness, high-risk demographic, postattempt demeanor and affect, quality of support, presence of self-rescue behaviors, future-oriented thoughts, and other factors can help in making the appropriate disposition.

Related Resources

• Kim H, Kim Y, Shin MH, et al. Early psychiatric referral after attempted suicide helps prevent suicide reattempts: a longitudinal national cohort study in South Korea. Front Psychiatry. 2022;13:607892. doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2022.607892
• Michaud L, Berva S, Ostertag L, et al. When to discharge and when to voluntary or compulsory hospitalize? Factors associated with treatment decision after self-harm. Psychiatry Res. 2022;317:114810. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114810

The human microbiota refers to the collection of bacteria, archaea, eukarya, and viruses that reside within the human body. The term gut microbiome indicates the composition of these microbes and genetic codes in the intestine.¹ Harkening back to the ancient Greek physician Galen, who treated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms to relieve mental disturbances such as psychosis, the gut has been a therapeutic target in schizophrenia long before antipsychotics and the DSM.² In recent years, research into the gut microbiome has drastically increased, with genetic sequencing affording a more precise look into the specific bacteria that call the human intestines their home. This has led to the recognition that the gut microbiome may be severely disrupted in schizophrenia, a condition known as dysbiosis. Preliminary research suggests that gut bacteria are more helpful than many human genes in distinguishing individuals with schizophrenia from their healthy counterparts.^3,4 In this article, we discuss the potential role of the gut microbiome in schizophrenia, including new research correlating clinical symptoms of psychosis with dysbiosis. We also provide recommendations for promoting a healthy gut microbiome.

The enteric brain across life

The composition of our bodies is far more microbiota than human. Strikingly, microbiota cells in the gut outnumber human cells, and the distal gut alone hosts bacteria with 100 times the genetic content of the entire genome.⁵ The intricate meshwork of nerves in the gut is often called the enteric brain because the gut consists of 100 million neurons and synthesizes many neuroactive chemicals implicated in mood disorders and psychosis, including serotonin, dopamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and acetylcholine.⁶ The variety of neuro­immunologic, hormonal, and metabolic paths by which the gutmicrobiome and the brain interact are collectively known as the gut-microbiota-brainaxis.⁷

How do we acquire our gut microbiome, and how does it come to influence ourbrain and behavior? On the first day of life, as babies pass through the birth canal, they are bathed in their mother’s vaginal microbiota. In the following weeks, the microbiome expands and colonizes the gut as bacteria are introduced from environmental sources such as skin-to-skin contact and breastmilk.⁸ The microbiome continues to evolve throughout early life. As children expand their diets and navigate new aspects of the physical world, additional bacteria join the unseen ecosystem growing inside.⁹ The development of the microbiome coincides with the development of the brain. From preclinical studies, we know the gut microbiome mediates important aspects of neurodevelopment such as the formation of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), synaptic pruning, glial activation, and myelination.¹⁰ Interestingly, many of the risk factors for schizophrenia are associated with gut dysbiosis, including obstetric complications, infections treated with antibiotics, and urbanization.^11-15

Throughout human life, the gut and brain remain in close communication. The gut microbiota continue to produce monoamines, along with other metabolites that are able to cross the BBB.⁶ The HPA axis, stimulation of the immune system, and the vagus nerve all provide highways of communication between the gut and the brain.⁷ The relationship between the enteric brain and cephalic brain continues through life, even up to a person’s final hour. One autopsy study that is often cited (but soberingly, cannot be found online) allegedly revealed that 92% of schizophrenia patients had developed colitis by the time of death.^16,17

First-episode psychosis and antipsychotic treatment

For patients with schizophrenia, first-episode psychosis (FEP) represents a cocktail of mounting genetic and environmental factors. Typically, by the time a patient receives psychiatric care, they present with characteristic psychotic symptoms—hallucinations, delusions, bizarre behavior, and unusual thought process—along with a unique gut microbiome profile.

This disrupted microbiome coincides with a marked state of inflammation in the intestines. Inflammation triggers increased endothelial barrier permeability, similar to the way immune signals increase capillary permeability to allow immune cells into the periphery of the blood. Specific gut bacteria play specific roles in maintaining the gut barrier.^18,19 Disruptions in the bacteria that maintain the gut barrier, combined with inflammation, contribute to a leaky gut. A leaky gut barrier allows bacterial and immune products to more easily enter the bloodstream and then the brain, which is a potential source of neuroinflammation in schizophrenia.²⁰ This increase in gut permeability (leaky gut syndrome) is likely one of several reasons low-grade inflammation is common in schizophrenia—numerous studies show higher serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines along with antibacterial immunoglobulins in patients with FEP.^21,22

Fortunately, antipsychotics, especially the second-generation agents, help restore a healthy gut microbiome and have substantial anti-inflammatory properties.^23,24 These medications interact heavily with the gut microbiome: they have been found to have antibiotic properties, even in doses lower than would normally reach the gut microbiome.²⁵ In humans, a randomized controlled trial of probiotic supplementation for schizophrenia patients taking antipsychotics showed a reduction in GI symptoms but no significant improvement in psychotic symptoms.²⁶

Dysbiosis in schizophrenia: cause or effect?

There is no consensus on what constitutes a healthy gut microbiome because the gut microbiome is highly variable, even among healthy individuals, and can change quickly. Those who adopt new diets, for example, see drastic shifts in the gut microbiome within a few days.²⁷ Despite this variation, the main separation between a healthy and dysbiotic gut comes from the diversity of bacteria present in the gut—a healthy gut microbiome is associated with increased diversity. Numerous disease states have been associated with decreased bacterial diversity, including Clostridium difficile infection, Parkinson disease, depression, Crohn disease, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders.^28,29

Although there are ethical limitations to studying causality in humans directly, animal models have provided a great deal of insight into the gut microbiome’s role in the development of schizophrenia. A recent study used fecal transplant to provide the gut microbiome from patients with schizophrenia to a group of germ-free mice and compared these animals to a group of mice that received a fecal transplant from individuals with a healthy gut microbiome. The mice receiving the schizophrenia microbiome showed an increased startle response and hyperactivity.³ This was consistent with mouse models of schizophrenia, although with obvious limitations.³⁰ In addition, the brains of these animals showed changes in glutamate, glutamine, and GABA in the hippocampus; these chemicals play a role in the neurophysiology of schizophrenia.^3,31 This study has not yet been replicated, and considerable variation remains within the schizophrenia biosignature.

Continue to: Clinical symptoms of psychosis and the gut microbiome

Previous literature has grouped patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders as 1 unified study group. But as is the case with many psychiatric conditions, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in neurobiology, genetics, and microbiome composition among individuals with schizophrenia.³²

Researchers have begun to investigate ways in which the gut microbiome varies regarding the clinical symptoms of psychosis.³³ The Table^3,34-39 provides an overview of 7 human studies of gut microbiome changes relating to clinical features of schizophrenia. In these studies, researchers have found correlations between the gut microbiome and a tendency toward violence,³⁷ cognitive deficits,^34-36,39 depressive symptoms,^35,39 and numerous other clinical features of psychosis. Most of these correlations have not yet been replicated by further studies. But among studies with similar clinical questions, 3 reported changes in gut microbiome correlated with overall symptom severity, and 4 studies correlated changes with negative symptom severity. In 2 studies,^3,34Lachnospiraceae was correlated with worsened symptom severity. However, this may have been the result of poor control for antipsychotic use, as 1 study in bipolar patients found that Lachnospiraceae was increased in those taking antipsychotics compared to those who were not treated with antipsychotics.⁴⁰ The specific shifts in bacteria seen for overall symptom and negative symptom severity were not consistent across studies. This is not surprising because the gut microbiome varies with diet and geographic region,⁴¹ and patients in these studies were from a variety of regions. Multiple studies demonstrated gut microbiome alterations for patients with more severe negative symptoms. This is particularly interesting because negative symptoms are often difficult to treat and do not respond to antipsychotics.⁴² This research suggests the gut microbiome may be helpful in developing future treatments for patients with negative symptoms that do not respond to existing treatments.

Research of probiotic supplementation for ameliorating symptoms of schizophrenia has yielded mixed results.⁴³ It is possible that studies of probiotic supplementation have failed to consider the variations in the gut microbiome among individuals with schizophrenia. A better understanding of the variations in gut microbiome may allow for the development of more personalized interventions.

Recommendations for a healthy gut microbiome

In addition to antipsychotics, many other evidence-based interventions can be used to help restore a healthy gut microbiome in patients with schizophrenia. To improve the gut microbiome, we suggest discussing the following changes with patients:

• Quitting smoking. Smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia but decreases gut microbiome diversity.⁴⁴
• Avoiding excessive alcohol use. Excessive alcohol use contributes to dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability.⁴⁵ Moderate alcohol consumption does not appear to have the same harmful effects on the microbiome.⁴⁶
• Avoiding the use of recreational drugs, including marijuana, which impact the gut microbiome.⁴⁷
• Consuming a diet rich in fiber.⁴⁸ Presently, there is not enough evidence to recommend probiotic supplementation to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia.⁴¹ Similar to probiotics, fermented foods contain Lactobacillus, a bacterial species that produces lactic acid.⁴⁹Lactobacillus is enriched in the gut microbiome in some neurodegenerative diseases, and lactic acid can be neurotoxic at high levels.^50-52 Therefore, clinicians should not explicitly recommend fermented foods under the assumption of improved brain health. A diet rich in soluble fiber has been consistently shown to promote anti-inflammatory bacteria and is much more likely to be beneficial.^53,54 Soluble fiber is found in foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, and oats.
• Exercising can increase microbiome diversity and provide anti-inflammatory effects in the gut.^55,56 A recent review found that steady-state aerobic and high-intensity exercise interventions have positive effects on mood, cognition, and other negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.⁵⁵
• Minimizing stress. Psychological stress and physiological stress from untreated medical conditions are toxic to healthy gut bacteria and weaken the gut barrier.⁵⁷
• Mitigating exposure to pollution. Environmental pollution, including exposures to air pollution, heavy metals, and pesticides, disrupts the gut microbiome.⁵⁸

The American Heart Association publishes lifestyle recommendations for individuals with heart disease and the National Institutes of Health publishes lifestyle recommendations for patients with chronic kidney disease. This leads us to question why the American Psychiatric Association has not published lifestyle recommendations for those with severe mental illness. The effects of lifestyle on both the gut microbiome and symptom mitigation is critical. With increasingly shortened appointments, standardized guidelines would benefit psychiatrists and patients alike.

Bottom Line

The gut microbiome is connected to the clinical symptoms of psychosis via a variety of hormonal, neuroimmune, and metabolic mechanisms active across the lifespan. Despite advances in research, there is still much to be understood regarding this relationship. Clinicians should discuss with patients ways to promote a healthy gut microbiome, including consuming a diet rich in fiber, avoiding use of recreational drugs, and exercising regularly.

Related Resources

• Nocera A, Nasrallah HA. The association of the gut microbiota with clinical features in schizophrenia. Behav Sci. 2022;12(4):89.
• Nasrallah HA. It takes guts to be mentally ill: microbiota and psychopathology. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(9):4-6.

The human microbiota refers to the collection of bacteria, archaea, eukarya, and viruses that reside within the human body. The term gut microbiome indicates the composition of these microbes and genetic codes in the intestine.¹ Harkening back to the ancient Greek physician Galen, who treated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms to relieve mental disturbances such as psychosis, the gut has been a therapeutic target in schizophrenia long before antipsychotics and the DSM.² In recent years, research into the gut microbiome has drastically increased, with genetic sequencing affording a more precise look into the specific bacteria that call the human intestines their home. This has led to the recognition that the gut microbiome may be severely disrupted in schizophrenia, a condition known as dysbiosis. Preliminary research suggests that gut bacteria are more helpful than many human genes in distinguishing individuals with schizophrenia from their healthy counterparts.^3,4 In this article, we discuss the potential role of the gut microbiome in schizophrenia, including new research correlating clinical symptoms of psychosis with dysbiosis. We also provide recommendations for promoting a healthy gut microbiome.

The enteric brain across life

The composition of our bodies is far more microbiota than human. Strikingly, microbiota cells in the gut outnumber human cells, and the distal gut alone hosts bacteria with 100 times the genetic content of the entire genome.⁵ The intricate meshwork of nerves in the gut is often called the enteric brain because the gut consists of 100 million neurons and synthesizes many neuroactive chemicals implicated in mood disorders and psychosis, including serotonin, dopamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and acetylcholine.⁶ The variety of neuro­immunologic, hormonal, and metabolic paths by which the gutmicrobiome and the brain interact are collectively known as the gut-microbiota-brainaxis.⁷

How do we acquire our gut microbiome, and how does it come to influence ourbrain and behavior? On the first day of life, as babies pass through the birth canal, they are bathed in their mother’s vaginal microbiota. In the following weeks, the microbiome expands and colonizes the gut as bacteria are introduced from environmental sources such as skin-to-skin contact and breastmilk.⁸ The microbiome continues to evolve throughout early life. As children expand their diets and navigate new aspects of the physical world, additional bacteria join the unseen ecosystem growing inside.⁹ The development of the microbiome coincides with the development of the brain. From preclinical studies, we know the gut microbiome mediates important aspects of neurodevelopment such as the formation of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), synaptic pruning, glial activation, and myelination.¹⁰ Interestingly, many of the risk factors for schizophrenia are associated with gut dysbiosis, including obstetric complications, infections treated with antibiotics, and urbanization.^11-15

Throughout human life, the gut and brain remain in close communication. The gut microbiota continue to produce monoamines, along with other metabolites that are able to cross the BBB.⁶ The HPA axis, stimulation of the immune system, and the vagus nerve all provide highways of communication between the gut and the brain.⁷ The relationship between the enteric brain and cephalic brain continues through life, even up to a person’s final hour. One autopsy study that is often cited (but soberingly, cannot be found online) allegedly revealed that 92% of schizophrenia patients had developed colitis by the time of death.^16,17

First-episode psychosis and antipsychotic treatment

For patients with schizophrenia, first-episode psychosis (FEP) represents a cocktail of mounting genetic and environmental factors. Typically, by the time a patient receives psychiatric care, they present with characteristic psychotic symptoms—hallucinations, delusions, bizarre behavior, and unusual thought process—along with a unique gut microbiome profile.

This disrupted microbiome coincides with a marked state of inflammation in the intestines. Inflammation triggers increased endothelial barrier permeability, similar to the way immune signals increase capillary permeability to allow immune cells into the periphery of the blood. Specific gut bacteria play specific roles in maintaining the gut barrier.^18,19 Disruptions in the bacteria that maintain the gut barrier, combined with inflammation, contribute to a leaky gut. A leaky gut barrier allows bacterial and immune products to more easily enter the bloodstream and then the brain, which is a potential source of neuroinflammation in schizophrenia.²⁰ This increase in gut permeability (leaky gut syndrome) is likely one of several reasons low-grade inflammation is common in schizophrenia—numerous studies show higher serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines along with antibacterial immunoglobulins in patients with FEP.^21,22

Fortunately, antipsychotics, especially the second-generation agents, help restore a healthy gut microbiome and have substantial anti-inflammatory properties.^23,24 These medications interact heavily with the gut microbiome: they have been found to have antibiotic properties, even in doses lower than would normally reach the gut microbiome.²⁵ In humans, a randomized controlled trial of probiotic supplementation for schizophrenia patients taking antipsychotics showed a reduction in GI symptoms but no significant improvement in psychotic symptoms.²⁶

Dysbiosis in schizophrenia: cause or effect?

There is no consensus on what constitutes a healthy gut microbiome because the gut microbiome is highly variable, even among healthy individuals, and can change quickly. Those who adopt new diets, for example, see drastic shifts in the gut microbiome within a few days.²⁷ Despite this variation, the main separation between a healthy and dysbiotic gut comes from the diversity of bacteria present in the gut—a healthy gut microbiome is associated with increased diversity. Numerous disease states have been associated with decreased bacterial diversity, including Clostridium difficile infection, Parkinson disease, depression, Crohn disease, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders.^28,29

Although there are ethical limitations to studying causality in humans directly, animal models have provided a great deal of insight into the gut microbiome’s role in the development of schizophrenia. A recent study used fecal transplant to provide the gut microbiome from patients with schizophrenia to a group of germ-free mice and compared these animals to a group of mice that received a fecal transplant from individuals with a healthy gut microbiome. The mice receiving the schizophrenia microbiome showed an increased startle response and hyperactivity.³ This was consistent with mouse models of schizophrenia, although with obvious limitations.³⁰ In addition, the brains of these animals showed changes in glutamate, glutamine, and GABA in the hippocampus; these chemicals play a role in the neurophysiology of schizophrenia.^3,31 This study has not yet been replicated, and considerable variation remains within the schizophrenia biosignature.

Continue to: Clinical symptoms of psychosis and the gut microbiome

Previous literature has grouped patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders as 1 unified study group. But as is the case with many psychiatric conditions, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in neurobiology, genetics, and microbiome composition among individuals with schizophrenia.³²

Researchers have begun to investigate ways in which the gut microbiome varies regarding the clinical symptoms of psychosis.³³ The Table^3,34-39 provides an overview of 7 human studies of gut microbiome changes relating to clinical features of schizophrenia. In these studies, researchers have found correlations between the gut microbiome and a tendency toward violence,³⁷ cognitive deficits,^34-36,39 depressive symptoms,^35,39 and numerous other clinical features of psychosis. Most of these correlations have not yet been replicated by further studies. But among studies with similar clinical questions, 3 reported changes in gut microbiome correlated with overall symptom severity, and 4 studies correlated changes with negative symptom severity. In 2 studies,^3,34Lachnospiraceae was correlated with worsened symptom severity. However, this may have been the result of poor control for antipsychotic use, as 1 study in bipolar patients found that Lachnospiraceae was increased in those taking antipsychotics compared to those who were not treated with antipsychotics.⁴⁰ The specific shifts in bacteria seen for overall symptom and negative symptom severity were not consistent across studies. This is not surprising because the gut microbiome varies with diet and geographic region,⁴¹ and patients in these studies were from a variety of regions. Multiple studies demonstrated gut microbiome alterations for patients with more severe negative symptoms. This is particularly interesting because negative symptoms are often difficult to treat and do not respond to antipsychotics.⁴² This research suggests the gut microbiome may be helpful in developing future treatments for patients with negative symptoms that do not respond to existing treatments.

Research of probiotic supplementation for ameliorating symptoms of schizophrenia has yielded mixed results.⁴³ It is possible that studies of probiotic supplementation have failed to consider the variations in the gut microbiome among individuals with schizophrenia. A better understanding of the variations in gut microbiome may allow for the development of more personalized interventions.

Recommendations for a healthy gut microbiome

In addition to antipsychotics, many other evidence-based interventions can be used to help restore a healthy gut microbiome in patients with schizophrenia. To improve the gut microbiome, we suggest discussing the following changes with patients:

• Quitting smoking. Smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia but decreases gut microbiome diversity.⁴⁴
• Avoiding excessive alcohol use. Excessive alcohol use contributes to dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability.⁴⁵ Moderate alcohol consumption does not appear to have the same harmful effects on the microbiome.⁴⁶
• Avoiding the use of recreational drugs, including marijuana, which impact the gut microbiome.⁴⁷
• Consuming a diet rich in fiber.⁴⁸ Presently, there is not enough evidence to recommend probiotic supplementation to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia.⁴¹ Similar to probiotics, fermented foods contain Lactobacillus, a bacterial species that produces lactic acid.⁴⁹Lactobacillus is enriched in the gut microbiome in some neurodegenerative diseases, and lactic acid can be neurotoxic at high levels.^50-52 Therefore, clinicians should not explicitly recommend fermented foods under the assumption of improved brain health. A diet rich in soluble fiber has been consistently shown to promote anti-inflammatory bacteria and is much more likely to be beneficial.^53,54 Soluble fiber is found in foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, and oats.
• Exercising can increase microbiome diversity and provide anti-inflammatory effects in the gut.^55,56 A recent review found that steady-state aerobic and high-intensity exercise interventions have positive effects on mood, cognition, and other negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.⁵⁵
• Minimizing stress. Psychological stress and physiological stress from untreated medical conditions are toxic to healthy gut bacteria and weaken the gut barrier.⁵⁷
• Mitigating exposure to pollution. Environmental pollution, including exposures to air pollution, heavy metals, and pesticides, disrupts the gut microbiome.⁵⁸

The American Heart Association publishes lifestyle recommendations for individuals with heart disease and the National Institutes of Health publishes lifestyle recommendations for patients with chronic kidney disease. This leads us to question why the American Psychiatric Association has not published lifestyle recommendations for those with severe mental illness. The effects of lifestyle on both the gut microbiome and symptom mitigation is critical. With increasingly shortened appointments, standardized guidelines would benefit psychiatrists and patients alike.

Bottom Line

The gut microbiome is connected to the clinical symptoms of psychosis via a variety of hormonal, neuroimmune, and metabolic mechanisms active across the lifespan. Despite advances in research, there is still much to be understood regarding this relationship. Clinicians should discuss with patients ways to promote a healthy gut microbiome, including consuming a diet rich in fiber, avoiding use of recreational drugs, and exercising regularly.

Related Resources

• Nocera A, Nasrallah HA. The association of the gut microbiota with clinical features in schizophrenia. Behav Sci. 2022;12(4):89.
• Nasrallah HA. It takes guts to be mentally ill: microbiota and psychopathology. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(9):4-6.

The human microbiota refers to the collection of bacteria, archaea, eukarya, and viruses that reside within the human body. The term gut microbiome indicates the composition of these microbes and genetic codes in the intestine.¹ Harkening back to the ancient Greek physician Galen, who treated gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms to relieve mental disturbances such as psychosis, the gut has been a therapeutic target in schizophrenia long before antipsychotics and the DSM.² In recent years, research into the gut microbiome has drastically increased, with genetic sequencing affording a more precise look into the specific bacteria that call the human intestines their home. This has led to the recognition that the gut microbiome may be severely disrupted in schizophrenia, a condition known as dysbiosis. Preliminary research suggests that gut bacteria are more helpful than many human genes in distinguishing individuals with schizophrenia from their healthy counterparts.^3,4 In this article, we discuss the potential role of the gut microbiome in schizophrenia, including new research correlating clinical symptoms of psychosis with dysbiosis. We also provide recommendations for promoting a healthy gut microbiome.

The enteric brain across life

The composition of our bodies is far more microbiota than human. Strikingly, microbiota cells in the gut outnumber human cells, and the distal gut alone hosts bacteria with 100 times the genetic content of the entire genome.⁵ The intricate meshwork of nerves in the gut is often called the enteric brain because the gut consists of 100 million neurons and synthesizes many neuroactive chemicals implicated in mood disorders and psychosis, including serotonin, dopamine, gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), and acetylcholine.⁶ The variety of neuro­immunologic, hormonal, and metabolic paths by which the gutmicrobiome and the brain interact are collectively known as the gut-microbiota-brainaxis.⁷

How do we acquire our gut microbiome, and how does it come to influence ourbrain and behavior? On the first day of life, as babies pass through the birth canal, they are bathed in their mother’s vaginal microbiota. In the following weeks, the microbiome expands and colonizes the gut as bacteria are introduced from environmental sources such as skin-to-skin contact and breastmilk.⁸ The microbiome continues to evolve throughout early life. As children expand their diets and navigate new aspects of the physical world, additional bacteria join the unseen ecosystem growing inside.⁹ The development of the microbiome coincides with the development of the brain. From preclinical studies, we know the gut microbiome mediates important aspects of neurodevelopment such as the formation of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), synaptic pruning, glial activation, and myelination.¹⁰ Interestingly, many of the risk factors for schizophrenia are associated with gut dysbiosis, including obstetric complications, infections treated with antibiotics, and urbanization.^11-15

Throughout human life, the gut and brain remain in close communication. The gut microbiota continue to produce monoamines, along with other metabolites that are able to cross the BBB.⁶ The HPA axis, stimulation of the immune system, and the vagus nerve all provide highways of communication between the gut and the brain.⁷ The relationship between the enteric brain and cephalic brain continues through life, even up to a person’s final hour. One autopsy study that is often cited (but soberingly, cannot be found online) allegedly revealed that 92% of schizophrenia patients had developed colitis by the time of death.^16,17

First-episode psychosis and antipsychotic treatment

For patients with schizophrenia, first-episode psychosis (FEP) represents a cocktail of mounting genetic and environmental factors. Typically, by the time a patient receives psychiatric care, they present with characteristic psychotic symptoms—hallucinations, delusions, bizarre behavior, and unusual thought process—along with a unique gut microbiome profile.

This disrupted microbiome coincides with a marked state of inflammation in the intestines. Inflammation triggers increased endothelial barrier permeability, similar to the way immune signals increase capillary permeability to allow immune cells into the periphery of the blood. Specific gut bacteria play specific roles in maintaining the gut barrier.^18,19 Disruptions in the bacteria that maintain the gut barrier, combined with inflammation, contribute to a leaky gut. A leaky gut barrier allows bacterial and immune products to more easily enter the bloodstream and then the brain, which is a potential source of neuroinflammation in schizophrenia.²⁰ This increase in gut permeability (leaky gut syndrome) is likely one of several reasons low-grade inflammation is common in schizophrenia—numerous studies show higher serum levels of proinflammatory cytokines along with antibacterial immunoglobulins in patients with FEP.^21,22

Fortunately, antipsychotics, especially the second-generation agents, help restore a healthy gut microbiome and have substantial anti-inflammatory properties.^23,24 These medications interact heavily with the gut microbiome: they have been found to have antibiotic properties, even in doses lower than would normally reach the gut microbiome.²⁵ In humans, a randomized controlled trial of probiotic supplementation for schizophrenia patients taking antipsychotics showed a reduction in GI symptoms but no significant improvement in psychotic symptoms.²⁶

Dysbiosis in schizophrenia: cause or effect?

There is no consensus on what constitutes a healthy gut microbiome because the gut microbiome is highly variable, even among healthy individuals, and can change quickly. Those who adopt new diets, for example, see drastic shifts in the gut microbiome within a few days.²⁷ Despite this variation, the main separation between a healthy and dysbiotic gut comes from the diversity of bacteria present in the gut—a healthy gut microbiome is associated with increased diversity. Numerous disease states have been associated with decreased bacterial diversity, including Clostridium difficile infection, Parkinson disease, depression, Crohn disease, and schizophrenia spectrum disorders.^28,29

Although there are ethical limitations to studying causality in humans directly, animal models have provided a great deal of insight into the gut microbiome’s role in the development of schizophrenia. A recent study used fecal transplant to provide the gut microbiome from patients with schizophrenia to a group of germ-free mice and compared these animals to a group of mice that received a fecal transplant from individuals with a healthy gut microbiome. The mice receiving the schizophrenia microbiome showed an increased startle response and hyperactivity.³ This was consistent with mouse models of schizophrenia, although with obvious limitations.³⁰ In addition, the brains of these animals showed changes in glutamate, glutamine, and GABA in the hippocampus; these chemicals play a role in the neurophysiology of schizophrenia.^3,31 This study has not yet been replicated, and considerable variation remains within the schizophrenia biosignature.

Continue to: Clinical symptoms of psychosis and the gut microbiome

Previous literature has grouped patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders as 1 unified study group. But as is the case with many psychiatric conditions, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in neurobiology, genetics, and microbiome composition among individuals with schizophrenia.³²

Researchers have begun to investigate ways in which the gut microbiome varies regarding the clinical symptoms of psychosis.³³ The Table^3,34-39 provides an overview of 7 human studies of gut microbiome changes relating to clinical features of schizophrenia. In these studies, researchers have found correlations between the gut microbiome and a tendency toward violence,³⁷ cognitive deficits,^34-36,39 depressive symptoms,^35,39 and numerous other clinical features of psychosis. Most of these correlations have not yet been replicated by further studies. But among studies with similar clinical questions, 3 reported changes in gut microbiome correlated with overall symptom severity, and 4 studies correlated changes with negative symptom severity. In 2 studies,^3,34Lachnospiraceae was correlated with worsened symptom severity. However, this may have been the result of poor control for antipsychotic use, as 1 study in bipolar patients found that Lachnospiraceae was increased in those taking antipsychotics compared to those who were not treated with antipsychotics.⁴⁰ The specific shifts in bacteria seen for overall symptom and negative symptom severity were not consistent across studies. This is not surprising because the gut microbiome varies with diet and geographic region,⁴¹ and patients in these studies were from a variety of regions. Multiple studies demonstrated gut microbiome alterations for patients with more severe negative symptoms. This is particularly interesting because negative symptoms are often difficult to treat and do not respond to antipsychotics.⁴² This research suggests the gut microbiome may be helpful in developing future treatments for patients with negative symptoms that do not respond to existing treatments.

Research of probiotic supplementation for ameliorating symptoms of schizophrenia has yielded mixed results.⁴³ It is possible that studies of probiotic supplementation have failed to consider the variations in the gut microbiome among individuals with schizophrenia. A better understanding of the variations in gut microbiome may allow for the development of more personalized interventions.

Recommendations for a healthy gut microbiome

In addition to antipsychotics, many other evidence-based interventions can be used to help restore a healthy gut microbiome in patients with schizophrenia. To improve the gut microbiome, we suggest discussing the following changes with patients:

• Quitting smoking. Smoking is common among patients with schizophrenia but decreases gut microbiome diversity.⁴⁴
• Avoiding excessive alcohol use. Excessive alcohol use contributes to dysbiosis and increased intestinal permeability.⁴⁵ Moderate alcohol consumption does not appear to have the same harmful effects on the microbiome.⁴⁶
• Avoiding the use of recreational drugs, including marijuana, which impact the gut microbiome.⁴⁷
• Consuming a diet rich in fiber.⁴⁸ Presently, there is not enough evidence to recommend probiotic supplementation to reduce symptoms of schizophrenia.⁴¹ Similar to probiotics, fermented foods contain Lactobacillus, a bacterial species that produces lactic acid.⁴⁹Lactobacillus is enriched in the gut microbiome in some neurodegenerative diseases, and lactic acid can be neurotoxic at high levels.^50-52 Therefore, clinicians should not explicitly recommend fermented foods under the assumption of improved brain health. A diet rich in soluble fiber has been consistently shown to promote anti-inflammatory bacteria and is much more likely to be beneficial.^53,54 Soluble fiber is found in foods such as fruits, vegetables, beans, and oats.
• Exercising can increase microbiome diversity and provide anti-inflammatory effects in the gut.^55,56 A recent review found that steady-state aerobic and high-intensity exercise interventions have positive effects on mood, cognition, and other negative symptoms in patients with schizophrenia.⁵⁵
• Minimizing stress. Psychological stress and physiological stress from untreated medical conditions are toxic to healthy gut bacteria and weaken the gut barrier.⁵⁷
• Mitigating exposure to pollution. Environmental pollution, including exposures to air pollution, heavy metals, and pesticides, disrupts the gut microbiome.⁵⁸

The American Heart Association publishes lifestyle recommendations for individuals with heart disease and the National Institutes of Health publishes lifestyle recommendations for patients with chronic kidney disease. This leads us to question why the American Psychiatric Association has not published lifestyle recommendations for those with severe mental illness. The effects of lifestyle on both the gut microbiome and symptom mitigation is critical. With increasingly shortened appointments, standardized guidelines would benefit psychiatrists and patients alike.

Bottom Line

The gut microbiome is connected to the clinical symptoms of psychosis via a variety of hormonal, neuroimmune, and metabolic mechanisms active across the lifespan. Despite advances in research, there is still much to be understood regarding this relationship. Clinicians should discuss with patients ways to promote a healthy gut microbiome, including consuming a diet rich in fiber, avoiding use of recreational drugs, and exercising regularly.

Related Resources

• Nocera A, Nasrallah HA. The association of the gut microbiota with clinical features in schizophrenia. Behav Sci. 2022;12(4):89.
• Nasrallah HA. It takes guts to be mentally ill: microbiota and psychopathology. Current Psychiatry. 2018;17(9):4-6.

Clinicians generally regard major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia as 2 separate and distinct psychiatric brain disorders. However, despite some differences, those 2 psychiatric syndromes have numerous similarities across clinical features and neurobiologic parameters.

Biological similarities

Both disorders share the following variables:

• Highly genetic in etiology but with environmental influences and epigenetics
• Associated with childhood maltreatment, abuse, or neglect
• Disrupted neuroplasticity, especially shrinkage in hippocampal volume
• Significant drop in brain-derived neurotrophic factor resulting in decreased neurogenesis
• Extensive white matter pathology across interhemispheric and intrahemispheric bundles
• Increased levels of serum cortisol, a stress hormone and inflammatory biomarker
• Hypofrontal cerebral blood flow during acute episodes of both MDD and schizophrenia
• Reduced dendritic spines (in number and size) and impaired experiential neuroplasticity
• Neuroinflammation (eg, cytokines, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, C-reactive protein) during acute episodes
• Elevated oxidative stress biomarkers, indicating an increase in free radicals
• Overactive default mode network associated with ruminations in MDD and “daydreaming” in schizophrenia
• Decrease in gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and its inhibitory activity, translating into dysregulation of glutamatergic pathways and other neurotransmitters
• Immune dysregulation and comorbid autoimmune disorders

Clinical similarities

• Psychotic symptoms, especially delusional thinking such as paranoia in schizophrenia and severe self-deprecation in MDD
• Significantly elevated lifetime suicide risk
• Cognitive impairment (more severe in schizophrenia across several cognitive functions)
• Similarity of depressive and negative symptoms (especially anhedonia, apathy, restricted facial expression, social withdrawal)
• Antidepressant medications im­-prove depressive and negative symptoms (though not completely in the case of negative symptoms of schizophrenia)
• Both have treatment-resistant subtypes that fail to respond to standard therapies
• Both are associated with comorbid generalized anxiety disorder
• Both are associated with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder
• Both are associated with serious alcohol and drug use
• Early mortality from general medical conditions, especially cardiovascular risks due to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia
• Elevated risk of dementia with aging compared to the unaffected general population
• Opioids improve MDD and psychosis (buprenorphine in MDD and morphine in schizophrenia)
• Several second-generation antipsychotic medications are approved for both MDD and schizophrenia
• Electroconvulsive therapy is effective when pharmacotherapy fails in both MDD and schizophrenia

Biological differences

• Glutamate N-methyl-D-aspar­tate receptor antagonists (eg, ketamine) improve MDD but worsen schizophrenia
• Muscarinic agonists improve psychosis but worsen depression
• High pain threshold in schizophrenia (pain insensitivity) and low threshold in MDD (in which pain is a common comorbidity)
• Cortical thinning more severe in schizophrenia
• Hippocampal atrophy is reversible with successful treatment in MDD but not in schizophrenia
• Hypofrontality is reversible with remission in MDD but not in schizophrenia

Clinical differences

• Auditory and visual hallucinations are more common in schizophrenia than in MDD
• Anosognosia is common in schizophrenia but not in MDD
• Implausible delusions are more common in schizophrenia than in MDD
• Mood-congruent delusions are more common in MDD than in schizophrenia
• Sadness, crying, pessimism, and self-deprecation are common in MDD but not in schizophrenia
• Achieving full remission is more common in MDD than in schizophrenia
• Long-acting injectable medications are available for schizophrenia but not for MDD
• Evidence-based psychotherapy, without pharmacotherapy, is more likely to be effective in MDD than in schizophrenia

A transdiagnostic model of psychopathology

The significant overlap between MDD and schizophrenia should not be surprising. They are both generated by the same organ, the human brain, with disrupted neurochemical and physiological circuits in the brain.

The overlap is also consistent with the emerging transdiagnostic model of psychopathology.^1-9 This model proposes that there is a “core” genetic risk for psychopathology with different iterations. The transdiagnostic model is in stark contrast to the prevailing DSM-5, which categorizes psychiatric disorders in “silos,” as if they are completely independent from each other despite many shared features. This is highly debatable according to the substantial evidence that multiple psychiatric disorders share many genes that influence brain development in utero and predispose individuals to a variety of clinical symptoms in adolescence and young adulthood.

The origin of mental illness is being disentangled by emerging research, which is identifying the common links among the various disorders currently listed in DSM-5.¹⁰ However, the evolution of psychiatric diagnosis has come full circle from a single entity before DSM, to multiple entities with DSM, and now back to a unified transdiagnostic model that is rapidly emerging.¹¹ This has implications for the FDA’s persistent dogma that clinical trials for new drugs must be targeted for 1 of the DSM-5 categories, a flawed and narrow assumption. Given the accelerating body of evidence for a unified, transdiagnostic model, it makes much more sense for the FDA to approve medications that target a psychiatric symptom that is shared by multiple psychiatric conditions within a transdiagnostic clinical system. When medications are approved for a symptom regardless of a DSM diagnosis, the term “off-label” and its “stigma” will then fade into history, along with the malignant preauthorization racket that was invented by greedy insurance companies that exploit the off-label use of medications (even when an FDA-approved medication for the patient’s condition does not yet exist) simply to deny coverage, lower their expenses, and fatten their profits.

Clinicians generally regard major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia as 2 separate and distinct psychiatric brain disorders. However, despite some differences, those 2 psychiatric syndromes have numerous similarities across clinical features and neurobiologic parameters.

Biological similarities

Both disorders share the following variables:

• Highly genetic in etiology but with environmental influences and epigenetics
• Associated with childhood maltreatment, abuse, or neglect
• Disrupted neuroplasticity, especially shrinkage in hippocampal volume
• Significant drop in brain-derived neurotrophic factor resulting in decreased neurogenesis
• Extensive white matter pathology across interhemispheric and intrahemispheric bundles
• Increased levels of serum cortisol, a stress hormone and inflammatory biomarker
• Hypofrontal cerebral blood flow during acute episodes of both MDD and schizophrenia
• Reduced dendritic spines (in number and size) and impaired experiential neuroplasticity
• Neuroinflammation (eg, cytokines, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, C-reactive protein) during acute episodes
• Elevated oxidative stress biomarkers, indicating an increase in free radicals
• Overactive default mode network associated with ruminations in MDD and “daydreaming” in schizophrenia
• Decrease in gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and its inhibitory activity, translating into dysregulation of glutamatergic pathways and other neurotransmitters
• Immune dysregulation and comorbid autoimmune disorders

Clinical similarities

• Psychotic symptoms, especially delusional thinking such as paranoia in schizophrenia and severe self-deprecation in MDD
• Significantly elevated lifetime suicide risk
• Cognitive impairment (more severe in schizophrenia across several cognitive functions)
• Similarity of depressive and negative symptoms (especially anhedonia, apathy, restricted facial expression, social withdrawal)
• Antidepressant medications im­-prove depressive and negative symptoms (though not completely in the case of negative symptoms of schizophrenia)
• Both have treatment-resistant subtypes that fail to respond to standard therapies
• Both are associated with comorbid generalized anxiety disorder
• Both are associated with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder
• Both are associated with serious alcohol and drug use
• Early mortality from general medical conditions, especially cardiovascular risks due to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia
• Elevated risk of dementia with aging compared to the unaffected general population
• Opioids improve MDD and psychosis (buprenorphine in MDD and morphine in schizophrenia)
• Several second-generation antipsychotic medications are approved for both MDD and schizophrenia
• Electroconvulsive therapy is effective when pharmacotherapy fails in both MDD and schizophrenia

Biological differences

• Glutamate N-methyl-D-aspar­tate receptor antagonists (eg, ketamine) improve MDD but worsen schizophrenia
• Muscarinic agonists improve psychosis but worsen depression
• High pain threshold in schizophrenia (pain insensitivity) and low threshold in MDD (in which pain is a common comorbidity)
• Cortical thinning more severe in schizophrenia
• Hippocampal atrophy is reversible with successful treatment in MDD but not in schizophrenia
• Hypofrontality is reversible with remission in MDD but not in schizophrenia

Clinical differences

• Auditory and visual hallucinations are more common in schizophrenia than in MDD
• Anosognosia is common in schizophrenia but not in MDD
• Implausible delusions are more common in schizophrenia than in MDD
• Mood-congruent delusions are more common in MDD than in schizophrenia
• Sadness, crying, pessimism, and self-deprecation are common in MDD but not in schizophrenia
• Achieving full remission is more common in MDD than in schizophrenia
• Long-acting injectable medications are available for schizophrenia but not for MDD
• Evidence-based psychotherapy, without pharmacotherapy, is more likely to be effective in MDD than in schizophrenia

A transdiagnostic model of psychopathology

The significant overlap between MDD and schizophrenia should not be surprising. They are both generated by the same organ, the human brain, with disrupted neurochemical and physiological circuits in the brain.

The overlap is also consistent with the emerging transdiagnostic model of psychopathology.^1-9 This model proposes that there is a “core” genetic risk for psychopathology with different iterations. The transdiagnostic model is in stark contrast to the prevailing DSM-5, which categorizes psychiatric disorders in “silos,” as if they are completely independent from each other despite many shared features. This is highly debatable according to the substantial evidence that multiple psychiatric disorders share many genes that influence brain development in utero and predispose individuals to a variety of clinical symptoms in adolescence and young adulthood.

The origin of mental illness is being disentangled by emerging research, which is identifying the common links among the various disorders currently listed in DSM-5.¹⁰ However, the evolution of psychiatric diagnosis has come full circle from a single entity before DSM, to multiple entities with DSM, and now back to a unified transdiagnostic model that is rapidly emerging.¹¹ This has implications for the FDA’s persistent dogma that clinical trials for new drugs must be targeted for 1 of the DSM-5 categories, a flawed and narrow assumption. Given the accelerating body of evidence for a unified, transdiagnostic model, it makes much more sense for the FDA to approve medications that target a psychiatric symptom that is shared by multiple psychiatric conditions within a transdiagnostic clinical system. When medications are approved for a symptom regardless of a DSM diagnosis, the term “off-label” and its “stigma” will then fade into history, along with the malignant preauthorization racket that was invented by greedy insurance companies that exploit the off-label use of medications (even when an FDA-approved medication for the patient’s condition does not yet exist) simply to deny coverage, lower their expenses, and fatten their profits.

Clinicians generally regard major depressive disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia as 2 separate and distinct psychiatric brain disorders. However, despite some differences, those 2 psychiatric syndromes have numerous similarities across clinical features and neurobiologic parameters.

Biological similarities

Both disorders share the following variables:

• Highly genetic in etiology but with environmental influences and epigenetics
• Associated with childhood maltreatment, abuse, or neglect
• Disrupted neuroplasticity, especially shrinkage in hippocampal volume
• Significant drop in brain-derived neurotrophic factor resulting in decreased neurogenesis
• Extensive white matter pathology across interhemispheric and intrahemispheric bundles
• Increased levels of serum cortisol, a stress hormone and inflammatory biomarker
• Hypofrontal cerebral blood flow during acute episodes of both MDD and schizophrenia
• Reduced dendritic spines (in number and size) and impaired experiential neuroplasticity
• Neuroinflammation (eg, cytokines, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, C-reactive protein) during acute episodes
• Elevated oxidative stress biomarkers, indicating an increase in free radicals
• Overactive default mode network associated with ruminations in MDD and “daydreaming” in schizophrenia
• Decrease in gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and its inhibitory activity, translating into dysregulation of glutamatergic pathways and other neurotransmitters
• Immune dysregulation and comorbid autoimmune disorders

Clinical similarities

• Psychotic symptoms, especially delusional thinking such as paranoia in schizophrenia and severe self-deprecation in MDD
• Significantly elevated lifetime suicide risk
• Cognitive impairment (more severe in schizophrenia across several cognitive functions)
• Similarity of depressive and negative symptoms (especially anhedonia, apathy, restricted facial expression, social withdrawal)
• Antidepressant medications im­-prove depressive and negative symptoms (though not completely in the case of negative symptoms of schizophrenia)
• Both have treatment-resistant subtypes that fail to respond to standard therapies
• Both are associated with comorbid generalized anxiety disorder
• Both are associated with comorbid obsessive-compulsive disorder
• Both are associated with serious alcohol and drug use
• Early mortality from general medical conditions, especially cardiovascular risks due to obesity, diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia
• Elevated risk of dementia with aging compared to the unaffected general population
• Opioids improve MDD and psychosis (buprenorphine in MDD and morphine in schizophrenia)
• Several second-generation antipsychotic medications are approved for both MDD and schizophrenia
• Electroconvulsive therapy is effective when pharmacotherapy fails in both MDD and schizophrenia

Biological differences

• Glutamate N-methyl-D-aspar­tate receptor antagonists (eg, ketamine) improve MDD but worsen schizophrenia
• Muscarinic agonists improve psychosis but worsen depression
• High pain threshold in schizophrenia (pain insensitivity) and low threshold in MDD (in which pain is a common comorbidity)
• Cortical thinning more severe in schizophrenia
• Hippocampal atrophy is reversible with successful treatment in MDD but not in schizophrenia
• Hypofrontality is reversible with remission in MDD but not in schizophrenia

Clinical differences

• Auditory and visual hallucinations are more common in schizophrenia than in MDD
• Anosognosia is common in schizophrenia but not in MDD
• Implausible delusions are more common in schizophrenia than in MDD
• Mood-congruent delusions are more common in MDD than in schizophrenia
• Sadness, crying, pessimism, and self-deprecation are common in MDD but not in schizophrenia
• Achieving full remission is more common in MDD than in schizophrenia
• Long-acting injectable medications are available for schizophrenia but not for MDD
• Evidence-based psychotherapy, without pharmacotherapy, is more likely to be effective in MDD than in schizophrenia

A transdiagnostic model of psychopathology

The significant overlap between MDD and schizophrenia should not be surprising. They are both generated by the same organ, the human brain, with disrupted neurochemical and physiological circuits in the brain.

The overlap is also consistent with the emerging transdiagnostic model of psychopathology.^1-9 This model proposes that there is a “core” genetic risk for psychopathology with different iterations. The transdiagnostic model is in stark contrast to the prevailing DSM-5, which categorizes psychiatric disorders in “silos,” as if they are completely independent from each other despite many shared features. This is highly debatable according to the substantial evidence that multiple psychiatric disorders share many genes that influence brain development in utero and predispose individuals to a variety of clinical symptoms in adolescence and young adulthood.

The origin of mental illness is being disentangled by emerging research, which is identifying the common links among the various disorders currently listed in DSM-5.¹⁰ However, the evolution of psychiatric diagnosis has come full circle from a single entity before DSM, to multiple entities with DSM, and now back to a unified transdiagnostic model that is rapidly emerging.¹¹ This has implications for the FDA’s persistent dogma that clinical trials for new drugs must be targeted for 1 of the DSM-5 categories, a flawed and narrow assumption. Given the accelerating body of evidence for a unified, transdiagnostic model, it makes much more sense for the FDA to approve medications that target a psychiatric symptom that is shared by multiple psychiatric conditions within a transdiagnostic clinical system. When medications are approved for a symptom regardless of a DSM diagnosis, the term “off-label” and its “stigma” will then fade into history, along with the malignant preauthorization racket that was invented by greedy insurance companies that exploit the off-label use of medications (even when an FDA-approved medication for the patient’s condition does not yet exist) simply to deny coverage, lower their expenses, and fatten their profits.

Mr. R, age 29, was diagnosed with schizophrenia 6 years ago. To manage his disorder, he has been receiving paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable (LAI) 156 mg once a month for 2 years. Prior to maintenance with paliperidone palmitate, Mr. R was stabilized on oral paliperidone 9 mg/d. Though he was originally initiated on paliperidone palmitate due to nonadherence concerns, Mr. R has been adherent with each injection for 1 year.

At a recent visit, Mr. R says he wants to discontinue the injection because he is not interested in receiving an ongoing injectable medication and is not able to continue monthly clinic visits. He wants to take a daily oral antipsychotic again, despite the availability of longer-acting products.

A paucity of evidence exists regarding the discontinuation of LAI antipsychotics and the next steps that follow in treatment. There is neither a consensus nor recognized guidelines advising how and when to discontinue an LAI and restart an oral antipsychotic. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated different maintenance treatment strategies; however, switching from an LAI antipsychotic to an oral medication was not a focus.¹ In this article, we outline a possible approach to discontinuing an LAI antipsychotic and restarting an oral formulation. Before discontinuing an LAI antipsychotic, clinicians should review with the patient the risks and benefits of switching medications, including the risk of decompensation and potential adverse effects.

Switching to an oral antipsychotic

The first step in the discontinuation process is to determine whether the patient will continue the same oral medication as the LAI antipsychotic or if a different oral antipsychotic will be initiated. Next, determining when to initiate the oral medication requires several pieces of information, including the oral dose equivalent of the patient’s current LAI, the half-life of the LAI, and the release mechanism of the LAI (Table 1).^2-5 To determine the appropriate time frame for restarting oral treatment, it is also vital to know the date of the last injection.

Based on the date of the next injection, the clinician will utilize the LAI’s half-life and its release mechanism to determine the appropriate time to start a new oral antipsychotic. Research demonstrates that in patients who have achieved steady state with a first-generation antipsychotic, plasma concentrations stay relatively consistent for 6 to 7 weeks after the last injection, which suggests oral medications may not need to be initiated until that time.^6-9

For many second-generation LAI antipsychotics, oral medications may be initiated at the date of the next injection. Initiation of an oral antipsychotic may require more time between the last injection dose and the date of administration for oral medication due to the pharmacokinetic profile of risperidone microspheres. Once a patient is at steady state with risperidone microspheres, trough levels are not observed until 3 to 4 weeks after discontinuation.¹⁰

Previous pharmacokinetic model–based stimulations of active moiety plasma concentrations of risperidone microspheres demonstrate that 2 weeks after an injection of risperidone microspheres, the concentration of active moiety continued to approximate the steady-state concentration for 3 to 5 weeks.¹¹ This is likely due to the product’s delay in release being 3 weeks from the time of injection to the last release phase. Of note, there was a rapid decline in the active moiety concentration; it reached nearly 0 by Week 5.¹¹ The same pharmacokinetic model–based stimulation demonstrated a steady and slow decline of the concentration of active moiety of paliperidone palmitate after discontinuation of the LAI.¹¹

Continue to: No guidance exists for...

No guidance exists for aripiprazole LAI medications; however, based on the pharmacokinetic data, administration of oral medications should be initiated at the date of next injection. Given the long half-life of aripiprazole, a cross-titration of the LAI with oral medication is reasonable.

Monitoring drug levels

In addition to utilizing the pharmacokinetic data from LAI antipsychotics, therapeutic drug levels can be instrumental in determining the dose of oral medication to use and when to begin titration (Table 2).^12-14 Obtaining a drug level on the date of the next injection can provide the clinician with data regarding the release of the medication specific to the patient. Based on the level and the current symptomatology, the clinician could choose to start the oral medication at a lower dose and titrate back to the LAI equivalent oral dose, or initiate the oral dose at the LAI equivalent oral dose. Continued therapeutic drug levels can aid in this determination.

No guidance exists on the appropriate discontinuation of LAI antipsychotics. Utilizing a medication’s half-life and release mechanism, as well as the patient’s previous medication history, date of last injection, and therapeutic drug levels, should be considered when determining the schedule for restarting an oral antipsychotic.

CASE CONTINUED

Based on the current dosing of paliperidone palmitate of 156 mg once a month, Mr. R likely requires 9 mg/d of oral paliperidone upon discontinuation of the LAI. On the date of the next injection, the clinician could decide to initiate a lower dose of paliperidone, such as to 3 mg/d or 6 mg/d, and increase the dose as tolerated over the next 10 to 14 days as the paliperidone palmitate is further metabolized. Additionally, the clinician may consider obtaining a therapeutic drug level to determine the current paliperidone level prior to initiating the oral medication. Each treatment option offers individual risks and benefits. The decision on when and how to initiate the oral medication will be based on the individual patient’s situation and history, as well as the comfort and discretion of the clinician. The clinician should arrange appropriate monitoring for potential increased symptomatology during the transition, and adverse effects should be assessed regularly until steady state is achieved with the targeted oral dose of medication.

Related Resources

• Parmentier BL. Second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics: a practical guide. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(3):24-32.
• Thippaiah SM, Fargason RE, Birur B. Switching antipsychotics: a guide to dose equivalents. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(4):13-14. doi:10.12788/cp.0103

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole lauroxil • Aristada
Aripiprazole monohydrate • Maintena
Haloperidol injection • Haldol decanoate
Olanzapine pamoate • Zyprexa Relprevv
Paliperidone • Invega
Paliperidone palmitate once monthly • Invega Sustenna
Paliperidone palmitate every 3 months • Invega Trinza
Paliperidone palmitate every 6 months • Invega Hafyera
Risperidone microspheres • Risperdal Consta
Risperidone polymer • Perseris

Mr. R, age 29, was diagnosed with schizophrenia 6 years ago. To manage his disorder, he has been receiving paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable (LAI) 156 mg once a month for 2 years. Prior to maintenance with paliperidone palmitate, Mr. R was stabilized on oral paliperidone 9 mg/d. Though he was originally initiated on paliperidone palmitate due to nonadherence concerns, Mr. R has been adherent with each injection for 1 year.

At a recent visit, Mr. R says he wants to discontinue the injection because he is not interested in receiving an ongoing injectable medication and is not able to continue monthly clinic visits. He wants to take a daily oral antipsychotic again, despite the availability of longer-acting products.

A paucity of evidence exists regarding the discontinuation of LAI antipsychotics and the next steps that follow in treatment. There is neither a consensus nor recognized guidelines advising how and when to discontinue an LAI and restart an oral antipsychotic. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated different maintenance treatment strategies; however, switching from an LAI antipsychotic to an oral medication was not a focus.¹ In this article, we outline a possible approach to discontinuing an LAI antipsychotic and restarting an oral formulation. Before discontinuing an LAI antipsychotic, clinicians should review with the patient the risks and benefits of switching medications, including the risk of decompensation and potential adverse effects.

Switching to an oral antipsychotic

The first step in the discontinuation process is to determine whether the patient will continue the same oral medication as the LAI antipsychotic or if a different oral antipsychotic will be initiated. Next, determining when to initiate the oral medication requires several pieces of information, including the oral dose equivalent of the patient’s current LAI, the half-life of the LAI, and the release mechanism of the LAI (Table 1).^2-5 To determine the appropriate time frame for restarting oral treatment, it is also vital to know the date of the last injection.

Based on the date of the next injection, the clinician will utilize the LAI’s half-life and its release mechanism to determine the appropriate time to start a new oral antipsychotic. Research demonstrates that in patients who have achieved steady state with a first-generation antipsychotic, plasma concentrations stay relatively consistent for 6 to 7 weeks after the last injection, which suggests oral medications may not need to be initiated until that time.^6-9

For many second-generation LAI antipsychotics, oral medications may be initiated at the date of the next injection. Initiation of an oral antipsychotic may require more time between the last injection dose and the date of administration for oral medication due to the pharmacokinetic profile of risperidone microspheres. Once a patient is at steady state with risperidone microspheres, trough levels are not observed until 3 to 4 weeks after discontinuation.¹⁰

Previous pharmacokinetic model–based stimulations of active moiety plasma concentrations of risperidone microspheres demonstrate that 2 weeks after an injection of risperidone microspheres, the concentration of active moiety continued to approximate the steady-state concentration for 3 to 5 weeks.¹¹ This is likely due to the product’s delay in release being 3 weeks from the time of injection to the last release phase. Of note, there was a rapid decline in the active moiety concentration; it reached nearly 0 by Week 5.¹¹ The same pharmacokinetic model–based stimulation demonstrated a steady and slow decline of the concentration of active moiety of paliperidone palmitate after discontinuation of the LAI.¹¹

Continue to: No guidance exists for...

No guidance exists for aripiprazole LAI medications; however, based on the pharmacokinetic data, administration of oral medications should be initiated at the date of next injection. Given the long half-life of aripiprazole, a cross-titration of the LAI with oral medication is reasonable.

Monitoring drug levels

In addition to utilizing the pharmacokinetic data from LAI antipsychotics, therapeutic drug levels can be instrumental in determining the dose of oral medication to use and when to begin titration (Table 2).^12-14 Obtaining a drug level on the date of the next injection can provide the clinician with data regarding the release of the medication specific to the patient. Based on the level and the current symptomatology, the clinician could choose to start the oral medication at a lower dose and titrate back to the LAI equivalent oral dose, or initiate the oral dose at the LAI equivalent oral dose. Continued therapeutic drug levels can aid in this determination.

No guidance exists on the appropriate discontinuation of LAI antipsychotics. Utilizing a medication’s half-life and release mechanism, as well as the patient’s previous medication history, date of last injection, and therapeutic drug levels, should be considered when determining the schedule for restarting an oral antipsychotic.

CASE CONTINUED

Based on the current dosing of paliperidone palmitate of 156 mg once a month, Mr. R likely requires 9 mg/d of oral paliperidone upon discontinuation of the LAI. On the date of the next injection, the clinician could decide to initiate a lower dose of paliperidone, such as to 3 mg/d or 6 mg/d, and increase the dose as tolerated over the next 10 to 14 days as the paliperidone palmitate is further metabolized. Additionally, the clinician may consider obtaining a therapeutic drug level to determine the current paliperidone level prior to initiating the oral medication. Each treatment option offers individual risks and benefits. The decision on when and how to initiate the oral medication will be based on the individual patient’s situation and history, as well as the comfort and discretion of the clinician. The clinician should arrange appropriate monitoring for potential increased symptomatology during the transition, and adverse effects should be assessed regularly until steady state is achieved with the targeted oral dose of medication.

Related Resources

• Parmentier BL. Second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics: a practical guide. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(3):24-32.
• Thippaiah SM, Fargason RE, Birur B. Switching antipsychotics: a guide to dose equivalents. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(4):13-14. doi:10.12788/cp.0103

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole lauroxil • Aristada
Aripiprazole monohydrate • Maintena
Haloperidol injection • Haldol decanoate
Olanzapine pamoate • Zyprexa Relprevv
Paliperidone • Invega
Paliperidone palmitate once monthly • Invega Sustenna
Paliperidone palmitate every 3 months • Invega Trinza
Paliperidone palmitate every 6 months • Invega Hafyera
Risperidone microspheres • Risperdal Consta
Risperidone polymer • Perseris

Mr. R, age 29, was diagnosed with schizophrenia 6 years ago. To manage his disorder, he has been receiving paliperidone palmitate long-acting injectable (LAI) 156 mg once a month for 2 years. Prior to maintenance with paliperidone palmitate, Mr. R was stabilized on oral paliperidone 9 mg/d. Though he was originally initiated on paliperidone palmitate due to nonadherence concerns, Mr. R has been adherent with each injection for 1 year.

At a recent visit, Mr. R says he wants to discontinue the injection because he is not interested in receiving an ongoing injectable medication and is not able to continue monthly clinic visits. He wants to take a daily oral antipsychotic again, despite the availability of longer-acting products.

A paucity of evidence exists regarding the discontinuation of LAI antipsychotics and the next steps that follow in treatment. There is neither a consensus nor recognized guidelines advising how and when to discontinue an LAI and restart an oral antipsychotic. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated different maintenance treatment strategies; however, switching from an LAI antipsychotic to an oral medication was not a focus.¹ In this article, we outline a possible approach to discontinuing an LAI antipsychotic and restarting an oral formulation. Before discontinuing an LAI antipsychotic, clinicians should review with the patient the risks and benefits of switching medications, including the risk of decompensation and potential adverse effects.

Switching to an oral antipsychotic

The first step in the discontinuation process is to determine whether the patient will continue the same oral medication as the LAI antipsychotic or if a different oral antipsychotic will be initiated. Next, determining when to initiate the oral medication requires several pieces of information, including the oral dose equivalent of the patient’s current LAI, the half-life of the LAI, and the release mechanism of the LAI (Table 1).^2-5 To determine the appropriate time frame for restarting oral treatment, it is also vital to know the date of the last injection.

Based on the date of the next injection, the clinician will utilize the LAI’s half-life and its release mechanism to determine the appropriate time to start a new oral antipsychotic. Research demonstrates that in patients who have achieved steady state with a first-generation antipsychotic, plasma concentrations stay relatively consistent for 6 to 7 weeks after the last injection, which suggests oral medications may not need to be initiated until that time.^6-9

For many second-generation LAI antipsychotics, oral medications may be initiated at the date of the next injection. Initiation of an oral antipsychotic may require more time between the last injection dose and the date of administration for oral medication due to the pharmacokinetic profile of risperidone microspheres. Once a patient is at steady state with risperidone microspheres, trough levels are not observed until 3 to 4 weeks after discontinuation.¹⁰

Previous pharmacokinetic model–based stimulations of active moiety plasma concentrations of risperidone microspheres demonstrate that 2 weeks after an injection of risperidone microspheres, the concentration of active moiety continued to approximate the steady-state concentration for 3 to 5 weeks.¹¹ This is likely due to the product’s delay in release being 3 weeks from the time of injection to the last release phase. Of note, there was a rapid decline in the active moiety concentration; it reached nearly 0 by Week 5.¹¹ The same pharmacokinetic model–based stimulation demonstrated a steady and slow decline of the concentration of active moiety of paliperidone palmitate after discontinuation of the LAI.¹¹

Continue to: No guidance exists for...

No guidance exists for aripiprazole LAI medications; however, based on the pharmacokinetic data, administration of oral medications should be initiated at the date of next injection. Given the long half-life of aripiprazole, a cross-titration of the LAI with oral medication is reasonable.

Monitoring drug levels

In addition to utilizing the pharmacokinetic data from LAI antipsychotics, therapeutic drug levels can be instrumental in determining the dose of oral medication to use and when to begin titration (Table 2).^12-14 Obtaining a drug level on the date of the next injection can provide the clinician with data regarding the release of the medication specific to the patient. Based on the level and the current symptomatology, the clinician could choose to start the oral medication at a lower dose and titrate back to the LAI equivalent oral dose, or initiate the oral dose at the LAI equivalent oral dose. Continued therapeutic drug levels can aid in this determination.

No guidance exists on the appropriate discontinuation of LAI antipsychotics. Utilizing a medication’s half-life and release mechanism, as well as the patient’s previous medication history, date of last injection, and therapeutic drug levels, should be considered when determining the schedule for restarting an oral antipsychotic.

CASE CONTINUED

Based on the current dosing of paliperidone palmitate of 156 mg once a month, Mr. R likely requires 9 mg/d of oral paliperidone upon discontinuation of the LAI. On the date of the next injection, the clinician could decide to initiate a lower dose of paliperidone, such as to 3 mg/d or 6 mg/d, and increase the dose as tolerated over the next 10 to 14 days as the paliperidone palmitate is further metabolized. Additionally, the clinician may consider obtaining a therapeutic drug level to determine the current paliperidone level prior to initiating the oral medication. Each treatment option offers individual risks and benefits. The decision on when and how to initiate the oral medication will be based on the individual patient’s situation and history, as well as the comfort and discretion of the clinician. The clinician should arrange appropriate monitoring for potential increased symptomatology during the transition, and adverse effects should be assessed regularly until steady state is achieved with the targeted oral dose of medication.

Related Resources

• Parmentier BL. Second-generation long-acting injectable antipsychotics: a practical guide. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(3):24-32.
• Thippaiah SM, Fargason RE, Birur B. Switching antipsychotics: a guide to dose equivalents. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(4):13-14. doi:10.12788/cp.0103

Drug Brand Names

Aripiprazole lauroxil • Aristada
Aripiprazole monohydrate • Maintena
Haloperidol injection • Haldol decanoate
Olanzapine pamoate • Zyprexa Relprevv
Paliperidone • Invega
Paliperidone palmitate once monthly • Invega Sustenna
Paliperidone palmitate every 3 months • Invega Trinza
Paliperidone palmitate every 6 months • Invega Hafyera
Risperidone microspheres • Risperdal Consta
Risperidone polymer • Perseris

There has been a substantial increase over the last 20 years in antipsychotic prescribing among children and adolescents in England – especially among those with autism, an analysis of primary care records from 7.2 million children and adolescents aged 3-18 years shows.

“This study demonstrates a concerning trend in antipsychotic prescribing in children and adolescents,” study investigator Matthias Pierce, PhD, senior research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) Center for Women’s Mental Health, who jointly led the study, said in a news release.

“We do not think the changes in prescribing necessarily relate to changes in clinical need; rather, it may be more likely to reflect changes in prescribing practice by clinicians,” Dr. Pierce said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Increase in long-term use

Between 2000 and 2019, prescriptions for antipsychotics nearly doubled from 0.06% to 0.11%.

The investigators note that the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has approved the use of some antipsychotics in patients younger than age 18 with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severely aggressive behavior attributable to conduct disorder.

However, these data suggest antipsychotics are being prescribed for an increasingly broad range of conditions, most commonly autism, but also for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, tic disorders like Tourrette syndrome, and learning difficulties.

“Broadening use of antipsychotics in developing young people begs questions about their safety over time and demands more research on this topic,” senior author Kathryn Abel, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Manchester said in the news release.

During the study period, antipsychotic prescribing in primary care increased by an average of 3.3% per year and the rate of first prescriptions increased by 2.2% per year.

The data also suggest that more children and adolescents are taking these powerful drugs for longer periods of time. The proportion receiving antipsychotics for at least 6 months after an initial prescription rose from 41.9% in 2000 to 62.8% in 2018.
 

Prescribing inequities

From 2009 onwards, more than 90% of prescriptions were for atypical antipsychotics.

Over time, risperidone dominated, with more than 60% of all prescriptions, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol as the most prescribed antipsychotics.

Boys and older children aged 15-18 years were most likely to receive an antipsychotic. However, the increasing trends were evident in all groups.

The data also point to inequities in prescribing as a result of deprivation levels, with typical antipsychotics prescribed more frequently in more deprived areas over time.

Dr. Pierce said he hopes this study will “help clinicians to evaluate the prescribing of antipsychotics to children more fully and will encourage them to consider better access to alternatives.”

Dr. Abel noted that antipsychotic medications “continue to have a valuable role in the treatment of serious mental illness. These findings represent a descriptive account of antipsychotic prescribing to children and adolescents in the U.K. today and provide a window onto current practice.”
 

Findings are no surprise

Emily Simonoff, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, offered perspective on the study in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“To clinicians, it will not be surprising that the authors demonstrate an increase in rates of prescriptions over that time period, as there has been a steadily emerging evidence base for the benefits of this group of medication for a range of different indications, which has been further supported by new licensing indications and recommendations from NICE,” Dr. Simonoff said.

For example, “there is good evidence for their benefits for other conditions such as irritability in autism spectrum disorder.

“However, it should also be noted that NICE recommendations for their use in many conditions is as part of a multimodal treatment plan, for example including psychological or behavioral interventions. It’s unclear from the study whether such recommendations were being followed or medication was being used on its own,” she added.

Dr. Simonoff also said it’s “reassuring” that prescribing rates remain very low in the youngest children and notes that the authors “rightly highlight the need for high-quality, longer-term studies on efficacy and, most importantly, adverse effects. This should be a research priority.”

The study had no funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simonoff is a member of the NICE guideline development group for the management of autism and has published on the efficacy of antipsychotic medication for irritability in autism.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a substantial increase over the last 20 years in antipsychotic prescribing among children and adolescents in England – especially among those with autism, an analysis of primary care records from 7.2 million children and adolescents aged 3-18 years shows.

“This study demonstrates a concerning trend in antipsychotic prescribing in children and adolescents,” study investigator Matthias Pierce, PhD, senior research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) Center for Women’s Mental Health, who jointly led the study, said in a news release.

“We do not think the changes in prescribing necessarily relate to changes in clinical need; rather, it may be more likely to reflect changes in prescribing practice by clinicians,” Dr. Pierce said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Increase in long-term use

Between 2000 and 2019, prescriptions for antipsychotics nearly doubled from 0.06% to 0.11%.

The investigators note that the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has approved the use of some antipsychotics in patients younger than age 18 with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severely aggressive behavior attributable to conduct disorder.

However, these data suggest antipsychotics are being prescribed for an increasingly broad range of conditions, most commonly autism, but also for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, tic disorders like Tourrette syndrome, and learning difficulties.

“Broadening use of antipsychotics in developing young people begs questions about their safety over time and demands more research on this topic,” senior author Kathryn Abel, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Manchester said in the news release.

During the study period, antipsychotic prescribing in primary care increased by an average of 3.3% per year and the rate of first prescriptions increased by 2.2% per year.

The data also suggest that more children and adolescents are taking these powerful drugs for longer periods of time. The proportion receiving antipsychotics for at least 6 months after an initial prescription rose from 41.9% in 2000 to 62.8% in 2018.
 

Prescribing inequities

From 2009 onwards, more than 90% of prescriptions were for atypical antipsychotics.

Over time, risperidone dominated, with more than 60% of all prescriptions, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol as the most prescribed antipsychotics.

Boys and older children aged 15-18 years were most likely to receive an antipsychotic. However, the increasing trends were evident in all groups.

The data also point to inequities in prescribing as a result of deprivation levels, with typical antipsychotics prescribed more frequently in more deprived areas over time.

Dr. Pierce said he hopes this study will “help clinicians to evaluate the prescribing of antipsychotics to children more fully and will encourage them to consider better access to alternatives.”

Dr. Abel noted that antipsychotic medications “continue to have a valuable role in the treatment of serious mental illness. These findings represent a descriptive account of antipsychotic prescribing to children and adolescents in the U.K. today and provide a window onto current practice.”
 

Findings are no surprise

Emily Simonoff, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, offered perspective on the study in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“To clinicians, it will not be surprising that the authors demonstrate an increase in rates of prescriptions over that time period, as there has been a steadily emerging evidence base for the benefits of this group of medication for a range of different indications, which has been further supported by new licensing indications and recommendations from NICE,” Dr. Simonoff said.

For example, “there is good evidence for their benefits for other conditions such as irritability in autism spectrum disorder.

“However, it should also be noted that NICE recommendations for their use in many conditions is as part of a multimodal treatment plan, for example including psychological or behavioral interventions. It’s unclear from the study whether such recommendations were being followed or medication was being used on its own,” she added.

Dr. Simonoff also said it’s “reassuring” that prescribing rates remain very low in the youngest children and notes that the authors “rightly highlight the need for high-quality, longer-term studies on efficacy and, most importantly, adverse effects. This should be a research priority.”

The study had no funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simonoff is a member of the NICE guideline development group for the management of autism and has published on the efficacy of antipsychotic medication for irritability in autism.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

There has been a substantial increase over the last 20 years in antipsychotic prescribing among children and adolescents in England – especially among those with autism, an analysis of primary care records from 7.2 million children and adolescents aged 3-18 years shows.

“This study demonstrates a concerning trend in antipsychotic prescribing in children and adolescents,” study investigator Matthias Pierce, PhD, senior research fellow at the University of Manchester (England) Center for Women’s Mental Health, who jointly led the study, said in a news release.

“We do not think the changes in prescribing necessarily relate to changes in clinical need; rather, it may be more likely to reflect changes in prescribing practice by clinicians,” Dr. Pierce said.

The study was published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

Increase in long-term use

Between 2000 and 2019, prescriptions for antipsychotics nearly doubled from 0.06% to 0.11%.

The investigators note that the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has approved the use of some antipsychotics in patients younger than age 18 with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severely aggressive behavior attributable to conduct disorder.

However, these data suggest antipsychotics are being prescribed for an increasingly broad range of conditions, most commonly autism, but also for attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder, tic disorders like Tourrette syndrome, and learning difficulties.

“Broadening use of antipsychotics in developing young people begs questions about their safety over time and demands more research on this topic,” senior author Kathryn Abel, MBBS, PhD, from the University of Manchester said in the news release.

During the study period, antipsychotic prescribing in primary care increased by an average of 3.3% per year and the rate of first prescriptions increased by 2.2% per year.

The data also suggest that more children and adolescents are taking these powerful drugs for longer periods of time. The proportion receiving antipsychotics for at least 6 months after an initial prescription rose from 41.9% in 2000 to 62.8% in 2018.
 

Prescribing inequities

From 2009 onwards, more than 90% of prescriptions were for atypical antipsychotics.

Over time, risperidone dominated, with more than 60% of all prescriptions, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, olanzapine, and haloperidol as the most prescribed antipsychotics.

Boys and older children aged 15-18 years were most likely to receive an antipsychotic. However, the increasing trends were evident in all groups.

The data also point to inequities in prescribing as a result of deprivation levels, with typical antipsychotics prescribed more frequently in more deprived areas over time.

Dr. Pierce said he hopes this study will “help clinicians to evaluate the prescribing of antipsychotics to children more fully and will encourage them to consider better access to alternatives.”

Dr. Abel noted that antipsychotic medications “continue to have a valuable role in the treatment of serious mental illness. These findings represent a descriptive account of antipsychotic prescribing to children and adolescents in the U.K. today and provide a window onto current practice.”
 

Findings are no surprise

Emily Simonoff, MD, professor of child and adolescent psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, offered perspective on the study in a statement from the U.K. nonprofit Science Media Centre.

“To clinicians, it will not be surprising that the authors demonstrate an increase in rates of prescriptions over that time period, as there has been a steadily emerging evidence base for the benefits of this group of medication for a range of different indications, which has been further supported by new licensing indications and recommendations from NICE,” Dr. Simonoff said.

For example, “there is good evidence for their benefits for other conditions such as irritability in autism spectrum disorder.

“However, it should also be noted that NICE recommendations for their use in many conditions is as part of a multimodal treatment plan, for example including psychological or behavioral interventions. It’s unclear from the study whether such recommendations were being followed or medication was being used on its own,” she added.

Dr. Simonoff also said it’s “reassuring” that prescribing rates remain very low in the youngest children and notes that the authors “rightly highlight the need for high-quality, longer-term studies on efficacy and, most importantly, adverse effects. This should be a research priority.”

The study had no funding. The authors report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Simonoff is a member of the NICE guideline development group for the management of autism and has published on the efficacy of antipsychotic medication for irritability in autism.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.