Shrinks In Sneakers

Tag: mental health treatment

  • Hoarding Disorder: A Looming National Crisis?

    Hoarding Disorder: A Looming National Crisis?

    A recent article on Medscape, Hoarding Disorder: A Looming National Crisis?, highlights the growing prevalence of hoarding disorder (HD) among older adults. While HD affects approximately 2% of the general population, studies suggest that prevalence may reach up to 6% among individuals over 70 years old.

    HD is characterized by persistent difficulty discarding possessions, even those with little to no monetary value. For individuals with HD, these items often provide a sense of security or serve as emotional reminders of the past. To outsiders, it’s difficult to understand why these possessions hold such deep significance, but for the person with HD, the items have profound sentimental value.

    Hoarding disorder is sometimes viewed as a subset of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but the overlap is not absolute. Many individuals with HD do not meet diagnostic criteria for OCD and often fail to respond to traditional OCD treatments. In my practice, I’ve come to conceptualize HD less as an extension of OCD and more as a personality-related condition influenced by environmental and psychological factors. For instance, many individuals with HD grew up in homes where similar behaviors were modeled. However, the precise causes of HD remain unclear.

    The consequences of HD are particularly concerning in older adults. The accumulation of clutter can pose significant safety risks, including fire hazards, tripping injuries, and even the potential for homelessness. These dangers were evident in a recent consult case where a medical team sought a psychiatric assessment of an elderly patient living in a severely cluttered home. Although the risks were undeniable, the individual did not meet criteria for psychiatric hospitalization. Even if hospitalization were an option, there is no FDA-approved treatment for HD at this time.

    The most evidence-based intervention we have for HD is cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), which requires sustained engagement over many weeks. Unfortunately, a key barrier is that many individuals with HD do not recognize the need for change or are reluctant to participate in therapy. This makes HD a uniquely challenging condition to address.

    Effective management of HD begins with education—helping patients understand the disorder, its risks, and the available treatment options. But education alone is not enough. We urgently need robust community support systems, including services to assist with clearing hazardous clutter and providing ongoing support to encourage treatment adherence.

    Inpatient psychiatric hospitalization, in my opinion, offers little benefit for HD. Instead, we need long-term, community-focused solutions. While policymakers often call for greater action to address mental health challenges, they frequently overlook the resource constraints faced by frontline providers. If we are to rise to this challenge, funding and systemic support must match the urgency of their rhetoric.

    HD is more than a personal struggle—it’s a public health issue with profound implications for individuals, families, and communities. As healthcare providers, we are ready to do more. Now, we need our leaders to step up and provide the resources to make that possible.

  • Psychiatry: Ahead of the Curve on Singulair’s Neuropsychiatric Risks

    Psychiatry: Ahead of the Curve on Singulair’s Neuropsychiatric Risks

    Psychiatry is often criticized for being “late to the table” when it comes to recognizing the broader impacts of medical treatments. However, in the case of Singulair (montelukast), psychiatry has been aware of its potential neuropsychiatric effects for quite some time.

    Singulair, widely used for asthma and allergic rhinitis, has long been associated with side effects such as mood changes, anxiety, depression, and even suicidality. This connection has been documented for years, yet the broader medical community and regulatory bodies have taken time to fully address these risks.

    Recently, the FDA issued a new warning aimed at heightening awareness of montelukast’s neuropsychiatric side effects. This update emphasizes the importance of assessing the risk-benefit ratio, particularly for patients with mild conditions where alternative treatments may suffice.

    Psychiatry’s Role

    Psychiatrists have long recognized and documented cases where montelukast seemed to exacerbate or trigger psychiatric symptoms. Many of us have seen patients whose mood instability or new-onset anxiety correlated with starting the medication, leading to its discontinuation and subsequent symptom improvement.

    Why This Matters

    This development underscores the value of psychiatry’s vigilance in identifying patterns that might initially go unnoticed in other fields. It’s also a reminder of the importance of collaboration between specialties to ensure patient safety.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Patients and families: Be aware of the potential neuropsychiatric side effects of montelukast. Monitor mood, sleep, and behavior changes closely, especially in children.
    • Clinicians: Always evaluate the necessity of montelukast in mild cases and consider alternatives when possible. Open conversations with patients about these risks can be life-saving.
    • Psychiatrists: Continue advocating for the recognition of neuropsychiatric risks in non-psychiatric medications. Our input is crucial in ensuring patient safety.

    Psychiatry wasn’t late to this table. In fact, we may have set it.

  • Breaking the Trauma Cycle: Can We Prevent PTSD Before It Begins?

    Breaking the Trauma Cycle: Can We Prevent PTSD Before It Begins?

    The use of hydrocortisone and propranolol in the prevention of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been explored in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We always want to know does it work or is it just another interesting idea with little evidence to support its use

    Hydrocortisone:

    Hydrocortisone, a corticosteroid, has been investigated for its potential to modulate the stress response and prevent the consolidation of traumatic memories, which is thought to contribute to the development of PTSD.

    1. Mechanism: Hydrocortisone works by increasing cortisol levels, which can suppress the stress-induced overactivation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Cortisol may reduce memory consolidation of trauma, thus decreasing PTSD risk.
    2. RCT Evidence:
      • Schelling et al. (2004) conducted a study on patients in the ICU, where hydrocortisone was used to treat septic shock. They found that patients who received hydrocortisone had a significantly lower risk of developing PTSD symptoms at follow-up compared to the placebo group. This suggested that hydrocortisone might have a protective effect in stress-related conditions.
      • Survivors of trauma: In a study by Zohar et al. (2011), trauma patients who received hydrocortisone in the immediate aftermath of the traumatic event had lower rates of PTSD symptoms compared to those who received placebo. The results suggested that hydrocortisone may reduce PTSD incidence when administered shortly after trauma exposure.
      • Critically ill patients: Schelling et al. (2001) showed that administering hydrocortisone to critically ill patients in the ICU reduced PTSD symptoms at follow-up, supporting the idea that early cortisol intervention can modulate the long-term psychological impact of traumatic experiences.
    3. Summary: Hydrocortisone has shown promise in reducing PTSD symptoms when administered during or soon after traumatic experiences, particularly in ICU patients or survivors of trauma. Its role appears to be in modulating the stress response and memory consolidation processes.

    Propranolol:

    Propranolol, a beta-blocker, is primarily used to treat cardiovascular conditions but has been studied for its effects on memory reconsolidation and emotional arousal, both of which are implicated in the development of PTSD.

    1. Mechanism: Propranolol reduces adrenergic activity by blocking beta-adrenergic receptors, potentially interfering with the emotional enhancement of traumatic memories, thus reducing their consolidation.
    2. RCT Evidence:
      • Pitman et al. (2002) conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which trauma victims (e.g., car accident survivors) were given propranolol or placebo within a few hours of the event. At follow-up, patients who received propranolol had reduced PTSD symptoms compared to those given placebo, though the results were not statistically significant.
      • Brunet et al. (2008) performed a study on individuals with PTSD, where propranolol was administered before memory reactivation (i.e., recalling the traumatic event). The group that received propranolol showed reduced physiological responses to trauma reminders and decreased emotional impact, suggesting that propranolol may weaken the reconsolidation of traumatic memories.
      • Stein et al. (2007) did not find a significant reduction in PTSD incidence when propranolol was administered following trauma. This led to mixed conclusions regarding its preventive efficacy.
    3. Summary: The evidence for propranolol is more mixed. While some studies suggest it may reduce PTSD symptoms by weakening emotional memory consolidation, other trials have not demonstrated a significant reduction in PTSD development.

    Conclusion:

    • Hydrocortisone has more consistent evidence supporting its role in preventing PTSD, particularly when administered soon after trauma.
    • Propranolol shows mixed results, with some evidence suggesting it may reduce emotional memory consolidation and PTSD symptoms, though its effectiveness in preventing PTSD development is less conclusive.

    Both treatments hold potential, but more research is needed to establish their routine use in PTSD prevention.

  • Family Ties That Bind: When High Expressed Emotion Worsens Schizophrenia

    Family Ties That Bind: When High Expressed Emotion Worsens Schizophrenia

    In psychiatry we are always asking patients about social support. The presence or absence of social support can have a major impact on treatment response and ability to remain well once someone leaves the hospital. This usually includes support from family members and friends. 

    In 1956 the Medical Research Council Social Psychiatry (MRCSP) London conducted a study regarding the readmission of schizophrenic patients. The research revealed that patients who were stabilized symptomatically and functionally inpatient and subsequently discharged to live with their parents or wives were frequently readmitted for relapse of symptoms compared to those who were discharged to a sibling, or non-family environment. While family involvement is generally a protective factor that helps prevent things like suicide, there are some situations where the over involvement of family can complicate matters and even create worse outcomes.

    This usually occurs when a family has high expressed emotion. 

    Expressed emotion (EE) has consistently been shown to predict relapse in schizophrenia as well as other psychiatric disorders. Expressed emotion is a measure of the family environment that is based on how the relatives of a psychiatric patient spontaneously talk about the patient. 

    It measures 3 aspects of the family environment associated with high expressed emotion:

    1. Hostility (outward anger and frustration towards the patient because the family believes they are choosing to not get better) 
    2. Emotional over-involvement (This is where the family tries to solve all the problems for the patient taking away their ability to be self-reliant). 
    3. Critical comments (where the family views the mentally ill patient as lazy or selfish, not appreciating the difficulty of living with mental illness). 

    However, research has shown the following as indications of an environment with low expressed emotion: 

    1.    Positivity: (statements that express appreciation or support for the patient’s behavior and gives verbal and nonverbal reinforcement). 

    2.    Warmth: (kindness, concern and empathy expressed by the caregiver).

    There is such a thing as too much involvement on the part of the families which can lead to complicating family dynamics and exacerbation of an individual’s symptoms of mental illness. Interventions for improving outcomes include reducing contact with high EE caregivers and providing psychoeducation about EE to care givers. Bringing awareness to this behavior may help family members change. 

  • Is Clozapine Disease Modifying?

    Is Clozapine Disease Modifying?

    This post comes from my real world experience with treating many patients with treatment resistant schizophrenia. I wanted to create a consolidated post that goes over what we know about the benefits of clozapine in schizophrenia treatment as well as what we do not know. Clozapine is unique among antipsychotics due to its superior efficacy in treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS), but whether it is disease-modifying remains debated.

    1. Superior Long-term Outcomes in TRS

    • Reduced Relapse Rates: Clozapine has been shown to reduce relapse rates more effectively than other antipsychotics. For instance, a large cohort study found lower rates of rehospitalization for patients on clozapine compared to those on other second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). The lower relapse rates may suggest stabilization of disease progression.
    • Cognitive Benefits: Several studies report improvements or stabilization in cognitive function in patients on clozapine, which contrasts with the cognitive decline often observed in schizophrenia. The preservation or improvement in cognitive function could indicate a modification of disease trajectory.

    2. Impact on Mortality and Suicidality

    • Reduced Mortality: Long-term use of clozapine has been associated with lower mortality rates in schizophrenia, both due to reduced suicide risk and fewer overall medical complications compared to other antipsychotics.
    • Suicide Prevention: Clozapine is the only antipsychotic shown to significantly reduce suicidality in schizophrenia patients, which may point to broader effects on disease severity and progression.

    3. Neurobiological Effects

    • Neuroprotection: Preclinical and human imaging studies suggest clozapine might have neuroprotective properties. Some animal models and neuroimaging studies indicate that clozapine can increase neurogenesis, reduce oxidative stress, and potentially protect against the neurodegeneration associated with chronic schizophrenia.
    • Synaptic Remodeling: There is some evidence that clozapine might positively influence synaptic plasticity. Studies suggest it might normalize the synaptic dysfunction seen in schizophrenia, which could theoretically have a disease-modifying effect by restoring some aspects of brain connectivity and function.

    4. Delay in Onset of TRS

    • Intervention Timing: There is emerging evidence suggesting that earlier introduction of clozapine (when TRS is identified) might lead to better long-term functional outcomes. This hints that clozapine could modify the disease course if used earlier in resistant cases, though direct evidence of disease modification remains scarce.

    5. Chronicity and Brain Volume Loss

    • Potential for Reduced Brain Volume Loss: Some studies indicate that clozapine may be associated with less gray matter loss over time compared to other antipsychotics. This could imply a reduction in the neuroprogressive aspects of schizophrenia.

    Limitations in Evidence

    While clozapine shows many positive outcomes, definitive evidence proving it is “disease-modifying” remains elusive:

    • Lack of RCTs Focused on Disease Modification: Most clinical trials focus on symptomatic improvement rather than long-term neurobiological changes or functional outcomes.
    • Challenges in Measuring Disease Progression: Schizophrenia is a complex, heterogeneous disorder with no clear biomarkers for progression, making it difficult to measure whether clozapine alters the underlying disease process.

    In summary, while there is compelling evidence that clozapine leads to better long-term outcomes and may have neuroprotective effects, proving it as a true disease-modifying treatment in schizophrenia requires more robust, long-term studies focused specifically on changes in the disease course.

  • The Culture of Burnout in Modern Medicine

    The Culture of Burnout in Modern Medicine

    Modern medicine has given rise to a new culture of burnout. As physicians, we are already high achievers—it’s a prerequisite to make it through the intense training. However, this constant push for relentless productivity often leads to feelings of exhaustion and disconnection. In medicine, the focus is always on doing more—seeing more patients, finishing more tasks, and achieving more outcomes each day.

    With digital technology, we’re constantly connected, always on call. Patients, colleagues, and administrators reach out through calls, texts, and emails at all hours. The pressure to respond immediately leads to guilt when we can’t meet these demands, even when they’re unreasonable. The result? We push ourselves beyond our limits, sacrificing our own well-being in the process.

    This grind leaves little room to rest or tend to our mental health. The importance of downtime is overlooked, even though it’s essential for long-term sustainability in our profession. But it’s time we rethink the culture of busyness and productivity. We need to start focusing on slowing down, with an emphasis on not staying busy for the sake of being busy.

    If you’re like me, you’ve probably tried this, only to find your mind immediately wandering to the next thing you need to do. The challenge is real. But to reclaim a deeper sense of meaning and purpose in both our personal and professional lives, we must commit to this change. By slowing down, we can begin to find more peace, love, and joy in our day-to-day activities.

    Let’s reclaim our lives—it’s long overdue

  • Non-Harvard Trained: Real Care, Real Results

    Non-Harvard Trained: Real Care, Real Results

    I constantly come across the phrase “Harvard-trained” in people’s bios. Sure, it brings instant brand recognition and credibility. But in reality, being trained at a prestigious institution—even one like Harvard—doesn’t automatically mean better skills or superior patient care.

    In psychiatry, quality care is shaped by much more than where someone trained. It comes from clinical experience, empathy, lifelong learning, and the ability to genuinely connect with patients. These are the factors that truly define the impact we make.

    While training is important, the real measure of a psychiatrist’s ability is in the care they provide and the outcomes they achieve. Psychiatry is such a nuanced field that no amount of prestige can substitute for hands-on experience and genuine compassion.

    It’s unfortunate that where someone trained is often used as a superficial marker of competence, overshadowing the true work that goes into patient care. Personally, I’d reject a Harvard offer, because for me, it’s about one thing: providing the highest level of care possible, every single day.

  • Unintended Outcomes After FDA Pediatric Antidepressant Warnings

    Unintended Outcomes After FDA Pediatric Antidepressant Warnings

    The article “Intended and Unintended Outcomes After FDA Pediatric Antidepressant Warnings: A Systematic Review” examines the effects of the FDA’s 2003-2004 black box warning on antidepressants regarding the risk of increased suicidal thoughts and behaviors in children and adolescents.

    Intended Outcome:

    • The FDA issued the warning to ensure greater awareness of potential risks, encouraging careful monitoring of pediatric patients taking antidepressants.
    • The goal was to reduce suicidal behaviors potentially linked to antidepressant use in younger populations.

    Unintended Outcomes:

    • The warning led to a significant drop in antidepressant prescriptions for children and adolescents.
    • There was a corresponding increase in untreated depression, which may have led to higher rates of suicide attempts and worsening mental health outcomes in some cases.
    • Reduced prescriptions were associated with a decrease in diagnosis and treatment of mood disorders in pediatric populations.
    • The warning inadvertently caused confusion among healthcare providers and parents, often resulting in delays in seeking treatment for depression or anxiety.

    Post-Warning Trends:

    • Follow-up research found no consistent evidence that the use of antidepressants in pediatric patients increases the risk of completed suicides.
    • The decline in antidepressant use and increase in suicidal behaviors during the period following the warning suggest unintended negative consequences of the FDA’s decision.

    Conclusions:

    • While the warning achieved its goal of raising awareness about the risks of antidepressants in children, it also resulted in under-treatment of depression, potentially exacerbating mental health challenges.
    • The article calls for balanced decision-making in pediatric antidepressant use, emphasizing the need for risk-benefit assessments and careful monitoring rather than outright avoidance of antidepressants.

      The FDA’s black box warning led to a reduction in antidepressant use but also to increased untreated mental illness, highlighting the complexities of addressing medication risks in vulnerable populations.

    1. Antidepressants and the Black Box Warning: Has Treatment Declined?

      Antidepressants and the Black Box Warning: Has Treatment Declined?

      The FDA’s black box warning on antidepressants highlights an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors, particularly in children, adolescents, and young adults during the early stages of treatment. However, while this warning raised concerns, it’s essential to understand its context:

      • The Risk: Antidepressants, especially SSRIs, can cause agitation or mood swings during the first few weeks of use, which may increase the risk of suicidal ideation. But studies have shown that untreated depression carries a far greater risk of suicide.
      • Impact on Treatment: Initially, the warning led to a reduction in prescriptions, especially for younger populations. However, there is now growing recognition that avoiding treatment for depression and anxiety can lead to worsened outcomes, including a higher risk of suicide.
      • Guidance: The black box warning does not mean antidepressants are dangerous for everyone. It is a reminder that careful monitoring during the first few weeks of treatment is essential. Psychotherapy combined with medication remains the most effective treatment for many.

      The takeaway: Antidepressants save lives, but starting treatment should always involve open communication between the patient and healthcare provider to manage risks and monitor progress closely.

    2. The parallels between the psychiatric asylums and modern inpatient psychiatric treatment 

      The parallels between the psychiatric asylums and modern inpatient psychiatric treatment 

      The history of psychiatric asylums is a dark chapter in mental health care, yet the more I reflect on it, the more I see troubling parallels between the asylum era and our modern system of inpatient psychiatric treatment.

      Asylums, in their earliest forms, were created with good intentions: to provide care for those with severe mental illnesses and intellectual disabilities who could not be safely or adequately treated in their communities. However, as these institutions became overcrowded, underfunded, and poorly staffed, they devolved into places of neglect, abuse, and suffering. The eventual closures of these institutions were a necessary response to the horrific conditions exposed, but the underlying issues didn’t disappear. They merely shifted.

      Today, many of the same challenges persist in our modern inpatient psychiatric system. Patients with severe mental illnesses or disabilities still require long-term care, but instead of asylums, they are placed in short-term facilities. These hospitals are often understaffed and overburdened, operating under financial pressures to prioritize quick turnover rather than long-term recovery. It’s not uncommon for patients to be admitted, stabilized just enough for discharge, and then readmitted within weeks—sometimes even days—because the core issues remain unaddressed.

      In both the asylums of the past and the short-term psychiatric hospitals of today, patients often receive the same types of medications and therapies. The difference is that today’s treatment settings operate under stricter legal frameworks aimed at preserving patient rights, but the lack of continuity and depth in treatment results in a revolving door of care. Rather than focusing on sustained recovery, the focus is often on crisis management and meeting insurance-imposed timelines.

      This cycle is problematic for patients and clinicians alike. For patients, it results in frustration, instability, and a lack of meaningful progress. For healthcare workers, it leads to burnout, similar to what was seen in the asylum era. The system, despite its modern façade, hasn’t evolved enough to address the long-term needs of individuals with severe mental illnesses. Until we invest in creating a system that prioritizes long-term, comprehensive care, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past—only this time without the walls of the asylum to contain the issue.