The diagnosis and treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is well established in the field of psychiatry. Not only is it well accepted, but ADHD has dramatically increased over the past 10 years. Some would even say it’s an epidemic in its own right. The use of psychostimulants as a treatment is common practice, and today we are here to discuss the risk of neurotoxicity with ADHD medication.
What Are Psychostimulants
Psychostimulants include methylphenidate (MPH) and mixed amphetamine salts such as Adderall. These remain the most effective and widely used medications for the treatment of ADHD. These medications function by blocking the dopamine reuptake transporter and increase dopamine stimulation at the postsynaptic receptors. These medications work to increase attention and reduce impulsivity but the long-term implications of consistent use are largely unknown.
Substance Use and Stimulant Prescribing
Most lines of evidence in the literature indicate that these medications do not promote substance use later in life and may even decrease the potential for future substance abuse. I’ve also found lines of evidence that indicate the opposite, but the general consensus in the field is that there is not increased risk for future substance abuse. We do know that drugs that function in a similar manner to these medications result in molecular and structural changes to neurons. It is unknown if this also occurs with stimulant medications used to treat ADHD.
Neuronal Effects of Amphetamine
Methamphetamine is a known neurotoxin and several studies have indicated this in animal models. Recently exposure to amphetamine has been sown to cause impairments on the development of dendritic branching up to 3 months after stopping methylphenidate. In mice there is evidence that MPH use causes loss of dopamine neurons in the substantia nigra which may increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease. Other groups have shown alterations in nerve growth factors and brain derived neurotrophic factor in the frontal cortex after chronic MPH use. When neurons from the prefrontal cortex are exposed to MPH it alters their electrical activity. MPH was found to reduce electrical activity and it persists in a dose dependent fashion even 10 weeks post exposure. In rats the use of MPH is associated with decreased response to normal stimuli and increased response to adverse stimuli. We need to be careful extrapolating this information to humans as these studies were conducted in animal models.
Treating agitation is a big part of inpatient and emergency psychiatric treatment. In the emergency department agitation accounts for 2.6% of total patient encounters. Knowing which medications to use and how to use them is critically important. Today I’m going to discuss all the options for the treatment of acute agitation in clinical practice.
What is Agitation?
Agitation is an extreme form of arousal that is associated with increased verbal and motor activity that poses a threat to themselves and others. Agitation needs to be recognized immediately and addressed due to the risk of harm to the patient and others.
Verbal De-escalation is Always The First Step
Engaging the patient and attempting to elicit a reason for the agitation should always be attempted first. In many cases patients are hungry, tired, or overly stimulated by the busy inpatient or ED setting. If these interventions are unsuccessful and the patient remains agitated security staff lead by the physician should inform the patient that if the behavior continues medication will be administered for safety purposes.
Thinking About Medication
Sometimes using medication is unavoidable and is required to facilitate a medical evaluation. We need to be mindful of the potential adverse events associated with sedating medication. The most common adverse effects are hypoxia, airway obstruction, QTc prolongation, bradycardia, and hypotension. Patients over the age of 65, alcohol intoxication, and multiple medication administrations in a short period of time increases the risk of adverse events.
Routes of Administration
It’s always best to offer PO (oral) medication prior to using IM or IV medications. In the inpatient setting we do not allow IVs due to the potential risk of self-harm; IM medication is second route of administration commonly used. I will usually use risperidone 2 mg or olanzapine zydis 10 mg because it begins dissolving immediately once the person puts it in their mouth in both cases. Oral medications can be “cheeked” and will also take longer to start working. In general, it’s important to note the onset of PO medication will be slower. Antipsychotic medications and benzodiazepines are commonly used for sedation in acute agitation.
First Generation Dopamine Blocking Medications
These medications have been around for a long time and have a good safety profile when used to treat acute agitation. Some antipsychotics have the risk for more side effects due to their ability to lower seizure threshold, cause hypotension, and have an increased anticholinergic burden.
Haloperidol
This is the go-to antipsychotic for acute agitation. It works by blocking D2 receptors and can be given PO, IM, or IV. Typical dosing is 2.5 to 10 mg with a recommended maximum dose of 20 mg/day. The average time to sedation is 25-28 minutes and the mean total time sedated is 84-126 minutes. The main risk for haloperidol is EPS such as acute dystonic reactions. To avoid this situation, we usually combine Haldol with lorazepam or benztropine/diphenhydramine. Haldol is also well studied and relatively staff for those who are acutely intoxicated with alcohol.
Chlorpromazine
I will usually go to chlorpromazine when I need someone to sleep such as cases of mania with acute agitation. I find it to be a little more sedating and it can be combined with diphenhydramine. Doses can range from 25 mg to 200 mg depending on the level of severity. The maximum dose is 400 mg/day.
Second Generation Dopamine Blocking Medication
Second generation medications have the added advantage of lower risk for QTc prolongation, less sedation, and fewer extrapyramidal symptoms compared to the first-generation options.
Olanzapine
Olanzapine comes in PO, IM, and IV forms, and the typical starting dose is 10 mg. Olanzapine reaches peak concentration in 15-45 minutes and its half-life is 2-4 hours. The incidence of EPS is much lower than injectable haloperidol. There is very rare incidence of QTc prolongation. There is some evidence that 10 mg of olanzapine is more effective than 5 mg of haloperidol for sedation and that most patients are adequately sedated at 15 minutes after administration of 10 mg olanzapine compared to 5 mg and 10 mg of haloperidol.
It’s important to note that multiple studies have demonstrated adverse events when olanzapine is combined with benzodiazepines. Although the risk may be overstated it’s best to avoid this combination unless necessary. Olanzapine is highly anticholinergic and should be avoided in cases where anticholinergic overdose is suspected.
Ziprasidone
Ziprasidone is a second-generation medication that is available in either PO or IM formulations. The PO form of the medication has little utility in acute agitation, but the IM version can be useful. Time to onset of effect is usually 15-20 minutes and it reaches peak concentrations in 30-45 minutes. The duration of sedation is at least 4 hours. Ziprasidone carriers the highest risk of second-generation medications for QTc prolongation
Risperidone
Data for risperidone in acute agitation is limitted. It does have the advantage of coming as an oral disintegrating tablet. In most cases I would administer 2-4 mg depending on the severity of symptoms. It can be a good option for patients with psychotic agitation due to paranoid delusions. It’s a good option for elderly patients and pregnant patients who can take PO medication.
Benzodiazepines
Benzodiazepines are another good choice when it comes to rapid treatment of acute agitation. Benzodiazepines do carry the risk of creating a paradoxical reaction in the elderly, but it’s relatively rare and seen in only 1% of cases. Flumazenil (benzodiazepine blocker) can be used to counteract this paradoxical reaction if needed. There is risk for respiratory depression especially in those who are already on central nervous system depressants. If withdrawal is suspected from benzodiazepines or alcohol, this is the first line option for treatment.
Lorazepam
Lorazepam is available in IV, IM, and PO formulations. The typical dosing is 0.5-2 mg IM or PO. This medication can be given every 30 minutes up to a maximum dose of 12 mg/day. Lorazepam is longer acting than midazolam and has an average time to adequate sedation of 32 minutes.
Midazolam
Midazolam is available in IM formulation and the typical dosing begins at 2-5 mg. The average time to sedation is 13-18 minutes for the IM formulation. When given IM the total time of sedation is between 82-105 minutes. Midazolam offers the advantage over lorazepam because it’s onset of action is faster. Midazolam also works faster than haloperidol or ziprasidone. The duration of sedation is also shorter.
Medication Combinations
In most cases these medications will be used in combination to maximize their effects. The most well-known is the so called B52 which consists of Haloperidol 5 mg, Lorazepam 2 mg, and diphenhydramine 50 mg. The idea here being 50, 5, and 2 are the doses and B52 because it’s like the B52 bombers when it comes to sedation. I also often combine chlorpromazine and olanzapine with 50 mg of diphenhydramine in the IM formulations. For PO risperidone you can combine it with PO lorazepam and diphenhydramine if needed. With ziprasidone I will usually give this one alone without lorazepam or diphenhydramine.
Physical Restraints
The utilization of physical restraints may be necessary when safety is a major concern. In some cases, verbal de-escalation, and medication are not enough. The problem is physical restraints can lead to injury for both the patient and staff. Patients who continue to fight against the restraints can have a complication known as rhabdomyolysis where the muscles are literally breaking down from the person fighting against the restraints. Sedation should always be provided when physical restraints are used. What happens if a person is given high doses of sedating medications and placed in psychical restraints but remains agitated?
Special Cases
It’s rare but I have had two clinical scenarios where an individual was placed in restraints given multiple doses of medications and remained severely agitated. Due to concern for the patient’s safety and risk of rhabdomyolysis I had to transfer each of these cases to the medical floor for IV dexmedetomidine (Precedex) which is commonly used to sedate patients in the intensive care unit who are intubated. After a short course of Precedex treatment each patient’s agitation resolved. There is now a rapidly dissolving film of dexmedetomidine available for acute agitation in bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, so I guess I was ahead of the times when I made these clinical decisions.
Conclusion
Agitation is a complicated and multifactorial process that requires quick action. To maintain safety, agitation needs to be quickly identified and managed. Verbal de-escalation and comfort measures should always be the starting point. If medications are required there are several individual and combinations that can be selected based on the clinical situation. When all else fails physical restraints remain a possibility until medications have had time to reach peak concentrations and effectiveness.
When Someone does not experience remission from major depression, we need to ask ourselves why, and come up with new solutions. This discussion will focus on the treatment of these individuals by first explaining what symptoms predict poor response to treatment and what symptoms of major depression result in the most psychosocial dysfunction.
What Causes Functional Impairment in Major Depression
From the STAR*D study we know that only 50% of patients respond to the first antidepressant treatment and only 33% achieve remission. An important question is why, or more specifically what factors result in poor outcomes.
Contrary to popular belief the medications we use to treat depression work well for some neurovegetative symptoms. Symptoms such as sleep, and appetite improve but the most debilitating symptoms often remain. Consistently Anhedonia and concentration are rated by patients with depression as the most debilitating. These cognitive symptoms such as trouble concentrating, difficulty planning, and poor attention lead to dysfunction at home and work.
Cognitive Symptoms Impair Work Performance
We all need to work to live, and depression is a leading cause of disability and poor work performance worldwide. What we know is that subjective measures of cognitive dysfunction are a better predictor of workplace performance than total depression severity. Someone with more severe overall depression scores may perform better at work than someone with perceived cognitive dysfunction from depression. This is one possible reason for a lack of improvement as many treatments do not address cognitive symptoms.
Anhedonia makes everything Worse
Possibly the most debilitating symptom of depression is anhedonia. Anhedonia is defined as loss of interest in previously pleasurable activities. A strong predictor of poor antidepressant outcome is the loss of interest. Making anhedonia a primary target of treatment would be wise if we want to improve outcomes in depression.
We have additional evidence that indicates how important anhedonia is for psychosocial function. Functional improvement is strongly associated with improvement in anhedonia. The improvement in anhedonia had a larger effect on psychosocial function than overall symptomatic response.
Emotional Blunting Effects on Treatment Outcomes
While people do not want to be depressed, they also do not want to be emotionally dull. Unfortunately, we know that emotional blunting is reported in nearly half of all depressed patients on antidepressants. This appears to be common to all monoamine antidepressants with bupropion having the lowest reported risk. Emotional blunting cannot be totally accounted for as just a side effect of treatment, it’s also a symptom of depression. However, the point remains the same emotional blunting results in poorer quality of remission.
Doctors Are Too Medically Oriented
The world of psychiatry is very different from other medical specialties. Psychiatry is really art based in science and if you try to approach mental health treatment from a strictly scientific basis you will never help anyone. When patients and physicians are asked to rank the symptoms of depression, they believe are most important, the lists do not match up.
Patients focus on restoration of positive affect by ranking things such as meaning and purpose in life, enjoyment in life, satisfaction with oneself as the top three most important things to address in depression. Clearly what should stand out to you here is that medication is unlikely to improve any of these factors.
Doctors rank depressed mood, hopelessness, and anhedonia as their top three symptoms to address. These symptoms are far better addressed by medication than the ones listed by patients although you could argue that hopelessness and anhedonia are difficult to treat with medication.
The effect of Loneliness on Health Outcomes
I’ve talked about this before and it continues to be a major concern in our modern world. We are the most connected we have ever been as a society with the advent of social media and the internet, yet no one feels connected. This is an existential crisis for all of us and I haven’t heard many good solutions. Time and time again we go back to the same things such as the internet and social media to feel connected and they continue to let us down. Not only is this emotionally taxing, but it’s also effecting our physical health as well. Here is yet another example of something that is very important for depression treatment outcomes that medication cannot fix.
Conclusion
What does this all mean? Should we stop attempting to use medication for the symptoms of depression? For me these findings indicate we need to screen more carefully for these specific symptoms that result in poor outcomes. We need to improve our psychosocial treatments to help people address ways to enhancing meaning and purpose in their lives. We need to recognize the limitations of medications. Medications have a place and do address some of the symptoms associated with depression, they just aren’t the ones patients believe are most important in their lives.
Recently Jonah Hill celebrated the gift of therapy with his Netflix documentary ‘Stutz’ which chronicles his journey through therapy and his friendship with Phil Stutz co-author of The Tools. This film was intended to highlight the benefits of psychotherapy and celebrate the teachings of Dr. Stutz. Personally, I think the documentary was low on practical advice for the average person, but it did highlight one very important factor that affects therapy outcomes. That will be the topic of today’s video, can we have a therapist who is also our friend?
Therapeutic Alliance and Why It’s so Important
This documentary raises many questions for someone who has been in both roles as therapist and patient. Time and time again we see that the most important factor in psychotherapy outcomes is the strength of the therapeutic alliance. The therapeutic alliance is a working relationship between the patient and their therapist that allows them to work together on established goals of therapy.
To me this comes down to how much do you like, trust, and feel comfortable opening up to the therapist. When we like someone and feel-good talking to them, we feel better regardless of what type of therapeutic techniques they use. Research has suggested that the quality of this relationship is a reliable predictor of positive clinical outcomes independent of the psychotherapy approach used. I remember in training hearing many of my psychotherapy preceptors make similar statements. Jonah Hill did a wonderful job of demonstrating the power of this alliance throughout the film. For me this was the big takeaway, considering Stutz is not a traditional psychotherapist.
Having a Therapist as Your Friend
I do not believe it’s ever a good idea to become friends with a patient. There are reasons we do not accepts gifts from patients, hangout with them outside of the assigned appointment times, or have romantic relationships. These to me are boundary crossings which will interfere with the work. Yes, in the case of this film it all worked out fine, at least that’s what they want you to believe. It did not appear that Hill had fully come to terms with his past, or unstable self image. He still seemed vulnerable and is possibly worse off as he’s come to depend on the relationship with Stutz for relief.
The goal of any good therapist should to teach our patients to become their own therapist. To use and apply the skills learned in the work of therapy, not to come for some friendly advice or a chat like old college buddies. The therapist is there to help guide the work in a warm empathetic way that allows the patient to take control of their life.
What Makes Stutz a Good Therapist?
It’s very difficult to make a blanket statement about how good Stutz is as a therapist. For Hill, he helped him process some very difficult work including making peace with his brother’s untimely death and working on self-esteem and body image. Stutz is honest, warm, and empathetic during his encounters. He knows how to push sensitive buttons in a playful manner and can establish a strong therapeutic alliance. These are things any aspiring psychotherapist can and should learn to use.
Some Things That Are Not So Good
When you start psychotherapy with any patient you must establish a therapeutic framework where the work of psychotherapy will be carried out. While I believe there is a loose framework established in the film it doesn’t appear to be well developed. This opens the door for boundary crossing which you as the therapist might not be aware is occurring because the frame is so weak. He also relies on self-developed Tools that aren’t validated by scientific evidence and appears at times as an authority figure giving out life advice. Advice can be useful in supportive psychotherapy, but most patients will not follow advice alone. Is this entirely bad? No, but it might not work for most patients unless you share the same feelings for the therapist as Hill does.
Therapist Reputation and Outcomes
Sometimes a therapist will develop a reputation as being “good.” Clearly, in celebrity circles Stutz has that reputation. When a new patient comes there is a belief that this therapist has access to special knowledge or skills that cannot be had any other way is already established. I do not think the tools as presented in the book/film are groundbreaking or things people have not heard before. In the film Stutz words are seen as absolute truth and there is full buy in from Hill which is probably why he felt better. While his tools are developed from his clinical practice, they are not validated scientifically. In place of science, we have a charismatic therapist asking for full faith in a program with no scientific validity. For some this approach clearly works, but it’s not because the tools are any better than other techniques used in psychotherapy.
Final Thoughts
I really Like Stutz and I do believe there are people that would benefit from his approach to therapy. However, the main benefit would not come from the tools he teaches because they are largely similar to other techniques and not scientifically validated. What you would benefit from in this brand of therapy is a warm, emphatic, and charismatic listener with some good advice if you’re willing to take it. After all, maybe that is really where the magic of therapy comes from anyway.
