Shrinks In Sneakers

Tag: medication mangement

  • Psychiatry Is on Trial. We Should Not Plead Guilty to the Wrong Charges

    Psychiatry Is on Trial. We Should Not Plead Guilty to the Wrong Charges

    Psychiatry is on trial. It was probably inevitable. A field that treats suffering, suicide, psychosis, trauma, addiction, violence risk, loneliness, despair, and meaninglessness was always going to be dragged into the political arena. Psychiatry sits at the intersection of medicine, culture, family trauma, public fear, pharmaceutical influence, personal liberty, and moral injury. That makes it uniquely vulnerable to distortion.

    But the current moment feels different.

    With Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. placing psychiatric medications and “overmedicalization” at the center of federal attention, psychiatry is no longer only being debated in journals, clinics, and academic conferences. It is being litigated in public. Increasingly, it is also being litigated in court. On May 4, 2026, HHS announced a MAHA action plan aimed at curbing psychiatric overprescribing, promoting informed consent, shared decision-making, nonmedication interventions, and deprescribing when clinically indicated.1

    Some of that language is reasonable. In fact, many psychiatrists already agree with it.

    Psychiatric medications should not be the default response to every form of human distress. Patients deserve informed consent. Deprescribing should be part of competent care. Psychotherapy, exercise, sleep, nutrition, family support, social connection, and meaning making should not be treated as decorative add-ons. They are often central to recovery.

    But that is not the same as saying psychiatric illness is not real. It is not the same as implying psychiatric medications are broadly dangerous, unnecessary, or responsible for America’s mental health crisis. And it is certainly not the same as turning painful anecdotes into national policy.

    That is where psychiatry must draw the line.

    The American Psychiatric Association has appropriately pushed back on the idea that the mental health crisis can be reduced to overprescribing, noting that this framing ignores workforce shortages, limited access to care, lack of psychiatric beds, and uneven distribution of evidence-based treatment.2 That is exactly right. Deprescribing may be good medicine in selected cases. But deprescribing is not a national mental health strategy.

    It is a clinical tool.

    There is a dangerous pattern in the current conversation. A public figure describes a deeply personal experience: a family member struggles to discontinue an antidepressant, someone feels emotionally blunted on medication, a young adult regrets being started on an SSRI as a teenager, or a patient develops withdrawal symptoms after stopping too quickly. The story is real. The suffering is real. The problem deserves attention.

    But then the anecdote becomes a theory of psychiatry.

    The assumption becomes: because this happened to someone I love, this must be what psychiatry is doing to the country.

    That is not science. That is narrative capture.

    Psychiatry should not dismiss these stories. We should listen to them. We should admit that antidepressant discontinuation can be difficult for some patients. We should acknowledge that medications are sometimes started without a clear enough plan, continued without adequate review, and stopped too abruptly. We should be honest that some patients are placed on medication when what they needed first was psychotherapy, time, structure, sleep, exercise, substance use treatment, grief work, family intervention, or a change in environment.

    But honesty cuts both ways.

    Some patients are not “overmedicalized.” They are undertreated. Some are not being harmed by psychiatry. They are being harmed by the absence of psychiatry. Some patients do not need fewer medications. They need the right diagnosis, the right medication, the right dose, the right monitoring, the right therapy, and a system that does not abandon them after discharge.

    I work in real-world psychiatry. I have seen patients whose lives were devastated by undertreated depression, bipolar disorder, psychosis, catatonia, OCD, addiction, and trauma. I have also seen patients placed on medications they did not need, for longer than necessary, without enough discussion about risks, benefits, alternatives, or exit strategies. Both realities are true.

    That is the entire point.

    Psychiatry’s critics often want one story. The real world gives us several.

    Psychiatric medications can be overused. They can also be lifesaving.

    Antidepressants can cause side effects. They can also help patients return to work, reconnect with family, survive suicidal depression, and function again.

    Stopping medication can produce withdrawal symptoms. Stopping medication can also reveal relapse of the underlying illness. Clinically, those are not always easy to separate, and the distinction matters.

    Psychiatry has a difficult history. It also remains one of the few medical specialties willing to sit with the most frightening, stigmatized, and disabling forms of human suffering.

    The field does not need denial. It needs precision.

    One of the most important reforms psychiatry should embrace is building the off-ramp into treatment from the beginning. When starting an antidepressant, clinicians should discuss expected duration, criteria for continuation, warning signs of relapse, tapering principles, and what remission means. Patients should know that medication is not a moral failure, not a life sentence, and not something to stop abruptly to prove toughness.

    Abrupt discontinuation is not courage. It is usually bad medicine.

    And it is not only psychiatrists saying so. The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, responding directly to the HHS action plan, warned that “abrupt discontinuation or inappropriate ‘deprescribing,’ particularly outside a collaborative patient-provider process, can increase risk, including the potential for symptom relapse and elevated suicide risk for some individuals.”3 AFSP also reaffirmed what decades of clinical trials, population-level studies, and health system data have shown: judicious use of antidepressants reduces suicide risk overall.3

    That is the suicide prevention community speaking. Not the pharmaceutical industry. Not organized psychiatry. The organization whose entire mission is keeping people alive.

    If HHS wants to support better tapering education, better informed consent, better access to psychotherapy, and better reimbursement for clinicians who take the time to deprescribe carefully, psychiatry should welcome that. In fact, we should lead it. The HHS action plan specifically emphasizes informed consent, shared decision-making, review of risks and benefits, nonmedication approaches, and tapering when patients are not experiencing clinical benefit.1 Those are not anti-psychiatry principles. Done correctly, they are good psychiatry.

    But the same public conversation has also entertained the claim that psychiatric medications cause mass shootings, a claim that has been repeatedly examined and found to lack credible scientific support. When prominent voices repeat it anyway, the harm is not abstract. Patients hear it. Families hear it. Lawmakers hear it. People already afraid of treatment become more afraid. Stigma grows. Care is delayed.

    And delayed care kills. AFSP said as much in its response to this action plan.3

    Psychiatry should not respond to this moment by becoming reflexively defensive. We should not pretend the field has always gotten it right. We have not. We should not deny withdrawal, side effects, diagnostic uncertainty, pharmaceutical influence, rushed prescribing, or the medicalization of ordinary distress. Those criticisms contain enough truth that ignoring them would be a mistake.

    But we should also refuse to accept a false indictment.

    The problem is not that psychiatry exists. The problem is that too many Americans receive fragmented, rushed, algorithmic, poorly monitored, under-resourced mental health care and then call that psychiatry.

    The problem is not that antidepressants are prescribed. The problem is that they are sometimes prescribed without enough diagnostic clarity, psychotherapy access, follow-up, deprescribing planning, or attention to the difference between illness and distress.

    The problem is not that psychiatrists believe in medication. The problem is that our health care system often reimburses medication management more reliably than psychotherapy, family work, lifestyle intervention, prevention, community support, and time.

    That is not an argument against psychiatry. It is an argument for better psychiatry.

    Psychiatry must be willing to say something politically inconvenient: not all suffering is mental illness, but mental illness is real. Not everyone who is sad needs a diagnosis, but some people with depression will die without treatment. Not every anxious child needs medication, but some children are severely impaired and deserve evidence-based care. Not every patient should remain on an antidepressant indefinitely, but some patients relapse repeatedly when treatment is stopped. Not every psychiatric outcome is preventable, but some bad outcomes occur because systems fail.

    It is possible to do everything right in psychiatry and still have a tragic outcome.

    It is also possible to have a tragic outcome because we did not do enough.

    That distinction is where serious medicine lives.

    This is why psychiatry must reclaim the public narrative. We cannot allow the field to be defined only by its critics, by pharmaceutical marketing, by political theater, or by the most extreme anecdotes on social media. We need to speak plainly to the public.

    Yes, antidepressant withdrawal can happen.

    Yes, some patients are overmedicated.

    Yes, informed consent needs to improve.

    Yes, therapy and lifestyle interventions matter.

    Yes, deprescribing should be part of psychiatric competence.

    And yes, psychiatric medications remain essential treatments for many people with serious and disabling illness.

    The future of psychiatry should not be pill-first. It should not be pill-never. It should be patient-first, diagnosis-first, evidence-first, and humility-first.

    Psychiatry will not survive this moment by going quiet, and it will not survive it by going defensive. It will survive by becoming better, and by saying so out loud.

    We are not the cause of America’s mental health crisis. We are also not its cure. We are physicians treating the most disabling illnesses medicine has ever named, in a system that has never funded us to do it well, in a country that wants the suffering to stop but does not want to pay for the treatment that stops it.

    If HHS wants better psychiatry, psychiatry should be the first to demand it. If patients want safer prescribing, we should be the ones leading it. If the public wants honesty, we should give them more of it than they expected.

    Psychiatry does not need to plead guilty to the wrong charges. But we do need to stop letting other people write the indictment.

    The defense rests when the work begins.

    References

    1. HHS launches MAHA action plan to curb psychiatric overprescribing. US Department of Health and Human Services. News release. May 4, 2026. Accessed May 13, 2026. https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-launches-maha-action-plan-curb-psychiatric-overprescribing.html

    2. APA welcomes national focus on mental health, urges evidence-based approach and continued focus on access to care. American Psychiatric Association. News release. May 4, 2026. Accessed May 13, 2026.

    3. Moutier CY. AFSP statement on the importance of antidepressants and evidence-based treatment for suicide prevention. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. News release. May 5, 2026. Accessed May 13, 2026. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/afsp-statement-on-the-importance-of-antidepressants-and-evidence-based-treatment-for-suicide-prevention-302762738.html

    4. Espí Forcén F, Hatters Friedman S. Psychiatry on trial: are psychiatrists responsible for their patients’ criminal behavior? Psychiatric Times. August 27, 2026. Accessed August 29, 2026. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/psychiatry-on-trial-are-psychiatrists-responsible-for-their-patients-criminal-behavior

    Disclaimer: Views are my own not associated with any employer. This is not medical advice, and the information is provided for educational purposes only. Please consult your doctor for any specific medical questions. All content is created for informational purposes only. The Content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider. If you think you have a medical emergency, call your doctor, go to the emergency department, or call 911. We do not endorse any specific treatment, tests, or procedures. Reliance on this information is solely at your own risk.

  • Suicide is a tragically common outcome in schizophrenia

    🔹 Up to 50% of patients attempt suicide
    🔹 Around 10% die by suicide

    The InterSePT trial directly addressed this crisis by comparing clozapine vs olanzapine in high-risk patients—all with recent suicidal ideation or attempts. Notably, only 27% were treatment-resistant.

    ✅ Clozapine led to a 25% reduction in suicidal behaviors—a game-changer.
    📌 This led to FDA approval for clozapine in reducing suicidality in schizophrenia.

    Let’s stop thinking of clozapine only as a last resort. Sometimes, it’s exactly what’s needed—not later, but now.

  • 💊 Are Antidepressants Overprescribed in the U.S.? 🤔

    💊 Are Antidepressants Overprescribed in the U.S.? 🤔

    The question of whether antidepressants are overprescribed in the United States is complex and depends on how “overprescription” is defined.

    Arguments Suggesting Overprescription

    1. Broad Diagnostic Criteria:
      • The criteria for diagnosing conditions like major depressive disorder (MDD) can be broad, potentially leading to overdiagnosis and, consequently, overprescription.
    2. Prescribing Practices:
      • Primary care physicians write most antidepressant prescriptions, often without thorough psychiatric evaluation.
      • Some prescriptions are written for mild cases of depression or subclinical symptoms where psychotherapy or lifestyle changes might suffice.
    3. Off-Label Use:
      • Antidepressants are frequently prescribed off-label for conditions like insomnia, chronic pain, or anxiety, contributing to their high utilization.
    4. Pharmaceutical Influence:
      • Aggressive marketing by pharmaceutical companies has historically played a role in increasing antidepressant use.

    Arguments Against Overprescription

    1. Underdiagnosis and Undertreatment:
      • Despite high prescription rates, many individuals with diagnosable depression or anxiety disorders go untreated, particularly in underserved populations.
      • Stigma and access barriers often prevent people from seeking care.
    2. Increasing Mental Health Awareness:
      • Growing awareness of mental health issues may explain rising prescription rates, as more people seek help for legitimate conditions.
    3. Non-Psychiatric Indications:
      • Antidepressants are also effective for non-depressive disorders, like obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and chronic pain, which justifies some of their broader use.

    Data on Antidepressant Use

    According to surveys, about 1 in 8 Americans aged 18 and older take antidepressants, and usage is particularly high among women, especially those aged 40–59. While this might seem like a high prevalence, it may also reflect greater recognition and treatment of mental health issues.

    Key Considerations

    • Patient-Centered Care: The decision to prescribe antidepressants should be tailored to the individual, based on a comprehensive assessment of their symptoms and needs.
    • Access to Alternatives: Many individuals lack access to evidence-based non-pharmacological treatments like psychotherapy due to cost, availability, or stigma, making antidepressants a more feasible option.
    • Role of Education: Educating both prescribers and patients on appropriate use can reduce potential overprescription.
  • Clozapine: Unlocking Relief for Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia

    Clozapine: Unlocking Relief for Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia

    Clozapine has been studied extensively in schizophrenia, particularly for treatment-resistant cases. Its role in managing negative symptoms (e.g., apathy, alogia, anhedonia, social withdrawal) has been investigated in various randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

    RCT Evidence for Clozapine in Negative Symptoms

    1. Clozapine vs. Typical Antipsychotics
      • Several studies have shown clozapine’s superiority over first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) like haloperidol in reducing negative symptoms.
      • Example: A landmark RCT (Kane et al., 1988) demonstrated that clozapine not only reduced positive symptoms but also had beneficial effects on negative symptoms, potentially due to its unique pharmacology (e.g., serotonin-dopamine antagonism, NMDA receptor modulation).
    2. Clozapine vs. Other Atypical Antipsychotics
      • Mixed Results: Some RCTs suggest that clozapine is more effective than other atypical antipsychotics (e.g., risperidone or olanzapine) in improving negative symptoms, while others show no significant difference.
      • A meta-analysis of head-to-head RCTs found that while clozapine had modest effects on negative symptoms, differences between it and other atypicals were small.
    3. Clozapine in Primary Negative Symptoms
      • Challenges: True primary negative symptoms (not secondary to positive symptoms, sedation, or depression) are challenging to isolate in trials.
      • Some RCTs highlight that clozapine’s effects on negative symptoms might be indirect, mediated by improvements in positive symptoms, cognitive function, or overall social functioning.
    4. Adjunctive Therapies
      • RCTs combining clozapine with adjuncts like antidepressants (e.g., fluvoxamine) or cognitive enhancers (e.g., aripiprazole, NMDA modulators) have been conducted. While adjunctive strategies show promise, the evidence remains preliminary and inconsistent.

    Potential Mechanism

    Clozapine’s effects on negative symptoms may be attributed to:

    • Serotonin-Dopamine Antagonism: Improved dopamine transmission in the mesocortical pathway.
    • Glutamatergic Modulation: Effects on NMDA and AMPA receptors.
    • Anti-inflammatory Properties: Reduced neuroinflammation may play a role in symptom improvement.
    • Sedation Reduction: Lower propensity for extrapyramidal side effects compared to FGAs.

    Limitations of Evidence

    • Heterogeneity: Most RCTs mix patients with primary and secondary negative symptoms, confounding results.
    • Measurement Challenges: The assessment of negative symptoms in trials is often subjective and prone to bias.
    • Indirect Effects: Improvements may stem from reductions in positive symptoms or cognitive enhancements rather than direct action on negative symptoms.

    Key Takeaway

    Clozapine shows some benefit for negative symptoms, particularly when compared to FGAs and in cases with secondary negative symptoms. However, its effects on primary negative symptoms are modest, and it is generally not considered the first-line choice for this domain of schizophrenia. Adjunctive approaches or newer agents might offer additional promise.

  • Split or Stick? The Real Impact of Dividing Clozapine Doses

    Split or Stick? The Real Impact of Dividing Clozapine Doses

    This post comes from a recent discussion I had with my resident about the utility of splitting clozapine doses in a recent case we had.

    The evidence on splitting clozapine into multiple daily doses primarily stems from clinical observations and smaller studies rather than extensive, randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Since clozapine has a unique pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profile, standardizing an RCT on dose splitting has been challenging.

    1. Clozapine’s Half-Life and Steady-State Concentration: Clozapine has a long half-life (averaging about 12 hours), meaning steady-state concentrations can be reached without strict multiple dosing. Many patients maintain stable blood levels with once-daily dosing, especially at lower doses.
    2. Dose Splitting and Side Effects: Some smaller studies and clinical observations suggest that splitting doses can help reduce peak plasma levels of clozapine, which can be associated with side effects like sedation, hypotension, and dizziness. In these cases, a split dosing regimen may improve tolerability, particularly in patients who experience significant sedation or orthostatic hypotension with a single daily dose.
    3. Metabolic Side Effects and Compliance: In cases where metabolic side effects are of concern, or in patients who may not tolerate high single doses well, dividing doses could help with tolerability, potentially improving compliance and minimizing adverse effects like sedation or metabolic impact.
    4. Seizure Risk: High plasma peaks with a single large dose may theoretically increase the risk of seizures, especially in patients on higher doses of clozapine. Dividing doses is sometimes recommended as a preventive measure to maintain a more consistent blood level, although robust RCT data supporting this specific benefit is lacking.

    While RCT evidence specifically on clozapine dose-splitting remains limited, clinical judgment, patient tolerance, and monitoring of therapeutic blood levels play essential roles in tailoring dose regimens.

  • Raising the Bar: Should Buprenorphine Doses Be Higher to Combat Opioid Use Disorder?

    Raising the Bar: Should Buprenorphine Doses Be Higher to Combat Opioid Use Disorder?

    The study “Association of Daily Doses of Buprenorphine With Urgent Health Care Utilization” explored how different buprenorphine doses affect emergency department (ED) and inpatient service use among individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD).

    1. Higher Doses Associated with Fewer Acute Care Visits: Patients receiving higher doses of buprenorphine (above 16 mg/day) had a longer time to ED or inpatient visits compared to those on lower doses (8-16 mg/day). Those on doses over 24 mg saw a significant reduction in the need for urgent care, particularly related to behavioral health crises.
    2. Implications for Fentanyl Users: The findings are particularly relevant for those using synthetic opioids like fentanyl, which often require higher doses of buprenorphine to manage withdrawal symptoms effectively. These higher doses may reduce acute care needs and improve overall treatment outcomes.
    3. Policy Considerations: The study highlights potential barriers, such as restrictive state laws or insurance limitations, that may prevent patients from accessing higher buprenorphine doses, which could limit effective treatment.

    These results suggest that modifying buprenorphine dosing guidelines could be beneficial, especially as the opioid crisis evolves with the prevalence of fentanyl​

    Link to article: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2824049

  • Rethinking Antipsychotics: Is It Time to Hit Pause for Schizophrenia Patients

    Rethinking Antipsychotics: Is It Time to Hit Pause for Schizophrenia Patients

    The article “Deprescribing Antipsychotics in Patients with Schizophrenia: Findings from a Specialized Clinic” emphasizes a growing interest in reducing or discontinuing antipsychotic medications in patients with schizophrenia, particularly those stable on long-term treatment. While continuous antipsychotic use is common to prevent relapse, concerns about long-term side effects, such as metabolic give us pause and rise concerns. 

    Key Points:

    1. Benefits of Deprescribing:
      • Reduction in side effects such as weight gain and metabolic syndrome.
      • Potential reversal of tardive dyskinesia.
      • Empowering patients by involving them in shared decision-making, improving adherence and satisfaction.
    2. Risks:
      • The primary risk is relapse, with studies indicating relapse rates between 20-60% after discontinuation.
      • Relapse can lead to hospitalization, job loss, and disrupted relationships.
    3. Strategies for Safe Deprescribing:
      • Individualized Tapering: Gradual reduction in dose is essential, tailored to the patient’s specific needs and history.
      • Relapse Prevention: Engaging support systems (family, mental health teams), monitoring for early signs of relapse, and incorporating psychosocial interventions.
      • Ethical Considerations: Balancing patient autonomy with the duty to minimize harm is a challenge. Encouraging patient participation respects autonomy while ensuring they are aware of risks.

    Future Directions:

    • More research is needed on long-term outcomes of deprescribing, particularly in identifying which patients are the best candidates for safe withdrawal.
    • Clinical guidelines should better integrate recovery-oriented approaches with deprescribing efforts to strike a balance between risk mitigation and promoting patient empowerment​

    link to the article: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/deprescribing-antipsychotics-in-patients-with-schizophrenia-findings-from-a-specialized-clinic/DA2F622FFA9D26A1F119F4F9BC11F2E3

  • Rational Polypharmacy and Evidence-Based Off-Label Prescribing: Navigating the Risks of Irrational Treatment

    Rational Polypharmacy and Evidence-Based Off-Label Prescribing: Navigating the Risks of Irrational Treatment

    Today’s post is more of a clinical reflection. I’ve been sharing a lot about research studies lately, but I want to pause and talk about polypharmacy in psychiatry and off-label prescribing. Have you ever been in a situation where a patient comes in, and as you review their medications, you see they’re taking a benzodiazepine for anxiety, an antidepressant for depression, a dopamine blocker for psychosis, and a mood stabilizer for mood swings? Maybe even a stimulant for ADHD is thrown in the mix. While I say that with some humor, in reality, this is a common scenario. As an educator, it’s crucial to discuss rational polypharmacy and evidence-based off-label prescribing, as well as the dangers of irrational, off-evidence prescribing.

    There are times when using more than one dopamine-blocking medication is necessary in the short term—I’ve done it myself to achieve short-term stabilization—but it would never be my long-term plan. Treatment resistance is another situation where off-label medication, if supported by evidence, could be beneficial. However, if none of these justifications apply and the patient isn’t improving, yet they’re on a potentially risky combination of medications, this is the moment to reconsider the diagnosis. It may sound surprising, but misdiagnosis in psychiatry happens often. If the patient isn’t getting better, it could be because you’re treating the wrong condition.

    It’s also possible that you’re addressing a disorder that isn’t the primary issue. For example, a patient being treated for ADHD may have attention and impulsivity problems, but these could actually stem from an underlying bipolar disorder. Since symptoms in psychiatry frequently overlap across multiple disorders, it’s essential to maintain a diagnostic hierarchy in your mind. Sorting out which disorder should be prioritized can often resolve other symptoms that might be masquerading as a different psychiatric condition.

    So, if treatment isn’t working and the medication list keeps growing, consider that there may have been a mistake in the diagnosis, or that the focus has been on the wrong condition. Often, many symptoms are driven by a more serious underlying disorder, like bipolar disorder.