Daniel Carpenter

Assessment of adherence problems in patients with serious and persistent mental illness: recommendations from the Expert Consensus Guidelines.

Poor adherence to medication treatment can have devastating consequences for patients with serious mental illness. The literature review and recommendations in this article concerning assessment of adherence are reprinted from The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: Adherence Problems in Patients with Serious and Persistent Mental Illness, published in 2009. The expert consensus survey contained 39 questions (521 options) that asked about defining nonadherence, extent of adherence problems in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, risk factors for nonadherence, assessment methods, and interventions for specific types of adherence problems. The survey was completed by 41 (85%) of the 48 experts to whom it was sent. When evaluating adherence, the experts considered it important to assess both behavior and attitude, although they considered actual behavior most important. They also noted the importance of distinguishing patients who are not willing to take medication from those who are willing but not able to take their medication as prescribed due to forgetfulness, misunderstanding of instructions, or financial or environmental problems, since this will affect the type of intervention needed. Although self- and physician report are most commonly used to clinically assess adherence, they are often inaccurate and may underestimate nonadherence. The experts believe that more accurate information will be obtained by asking about any problems patients are having or anticipate having taking medication rather than if they have been taking their medication; They also recommended speaking with family or caregivers, if the patient gives permission, as well as using more objective measures (e.g., pill counts, pharmacy records, smart pill containers if available, and, when appropriate, medication plasma levels). Use of a validated self-report scale may also help improve accuracy. For patients who appear adherent to medication, the experts recommended monthly assessments for adherence, with additional assessments if there is a noticeable symptomatic change. If there is concern about adherence, they recommended more frequent (e.g., weekly) assessments. The article concludes with suggestions for clinical interview techniques for assessing adherence. (Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2010;16:34–45)

Treatment of depression in women: a summary of the expert consensus guidelines.

Women constitute two-thirds of patients suffering from common depressive disorders, making the treatment of depression in women a substantial public health concern. However, high-quality, empirical data on depressive disorders specific to women are limited, and there are no comprehensive evidence-based practice guidelines on the best treatments for these illnesses. To bridge the gap between research evidence and key clinical decisions, the authors developed a survey of expert opinion concerning treatment of four depressive conditions specific to women: premenstrual dysphoric disorder, depression in pregnancy, postpartum depression in a mother choosing to breast-feed, and depression related to perimenopause/menopause. The survey asked about 858 treatment options in 117 clinical situations and included a broad range of pharmacological, psychosocial, and alternative medicine approaches. The survey was sent to 40 national experts on women’s mental health issues, 36 (90%) of whom completed it. The options, scored using a modified version of the RAND Corporation’s 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions, were assigned one of three categorical rankings—first line/preferred choice, second line/alternate choice, third line/usually inappropriate—based on the 95% confidence interval of each item’s mean rating. The expert panel reached consensus (defined as a non-random distribution of scores by chi-square “goodness-of-fit” test) on 76% of the options, with greater consensus in situations involving severe symptoms. Guideline tables indicating preferred treatment strategies were then developed for key clinical situations. The authors summarize the expert consensus methodology they used and then, for each of the four key areas, review the treatment literature and summarize the experts’ recommendations and how they relate to the research findings. For women with severe symptoms in each area we asked about, the first-line recommendation was antidepressant medication combined with other modalities (generally psychotherapy). These recommendations parallel existing guidelines for severe depression in general populations. For initial treatment of milder symptoms in each situation, the panel was less uniform in recommending antidepressants, and either gave equal endorsement to other treatment modalities (e.g., nutritional or psychobehavioral approaches in PMDD; hormone replacement in perimenopause) or preferred psychotherapy over medication (during conception, pregnancy, or lactation). In all milder cases, however, antidepressants were recommended as at least second-line options. Among antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were recommended as first-line treatment in all situations. The specific SSRIs that were preferred depended on the particular clinical situation. Tricyclic antidepressants were highly rated alternatives to SSRIs in pregnancy and lactation. In evaluating many of the treatment options, the experts had to extrapolate beyond controlled data in comparing treatment options with each other or in combination. Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence, these guidelines provide some direction for addressing common clinical dilemmas in women, and can be used to inform clinicians and educate patients regarding the relative merits of a variety of interventions.

Treatment of behavioral emergencies: a summary of the expert consensus guidelines.

Objectives. Behavioral emergencies are a common and serious problem for consumers, their communities, and the healthcare settings on which they rely, but there is little research to guide provider responses to this challenge. Key constructs such as agitation have not been adequately operationalized so that the criteria defining a behavioral emergency are vague. A significant number of deaths of patients in restraint has focused government and regulators on these issues, but a consensus about key elements in the management of behavioral emergencies has not yet been articulated by the provider community. The authors assembled a panel of 50 experts to define the following elements: the threshold for emergency interventions, the scope of assessment for varying levels of urgency and cooperation, guiding principles in selecting interventions, and appropriate physical and medication strategies at different levels of diagnostic confidence and for a variety of etiologies and complicating conditions. Method. A written survey with 808 decision points was completed by 50 experts. A modified version of the RAND Corporation 9-point scale for rating appropriateness of medical decisions was used to score options. Consensus on each option was defined as a non-random distribution of scores by chi-square “goodness-of-fit” test. We assigned a categorical rank (first line/preferred choice, second line/ alternate choice, third line/usually inappropriate) to each option based on the 95% confidence interval around the mean rating. Guideline tables were constructed describing the preferred strategies in key clinical situations. Results. The expert panel reached consensus on 83% of the options. The relative appropriateness of emergency interventions was ascertained for a continuum of behaviors. When asked about the frequency with which emergency interventions (parenteral medication, restraint, seclusion) were required in their services, 47% of the experts reported that such interventions were necessary for 1%–5% of patients seen in their services and 32% for 6%–20%. In general, the consensus of this panel lends support to many elements of recent regulations from the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), including the timing of clinician assessment and reassessment and the intensity of nursing care. However, the panel did not endorse the concept of “chemical restraint,” instead favoring the idea that medications are treatments for target behaviors in behavioral emergencies even when the causes of these behaviors are not well understood. Control of aggressive behavior emerged as the highest priority during the emergency; however, preserving the physician-patient relationship was rated a close second and became the top priority in the long term. Oral medications, particularly concentrates, were clearly preferred if it is possible to use them. Benzodiazepines alone were top rated in 6 of 12 situations. High-potency conventional antipsychotics used alone never received higher ratings than benzodiazepines used alone. A combination of a benzodiazepine and an antipsychotic was preferred for patients with suspected schizophrenia, mania, or psychotic depression. There was equal support for high-potency conventional or atypical antipsychotics (particularly liquids) in oral combinations with benzodiazepines. Droperidol emerged in fourth place in some situations requiring an injection. Conclusions. To evaluate many of the treatment options in this survey, the experts had to extrapolate beyond controlled data. Within the limits of expert opinion and with the expectation that future research data will take precedence, these guidelines provide some direction for addressing common clinical dilemmas in the management of psychiatric emergencies and can be used to inform clinicians in acute care settings regarding the relative merits of various strategies.

Medication treatment of bipolar disorder 2000: a summary of the expert consensus guidelines.

&NA; The original Expert Consensus Guidelines on the Treatment of Bipolar Disorder were published in 1996. Since that time, a variety of new treatments for bipolar disorder have been reported; however, evidence for these treatments varies widely, with data especially limited regarding comparisons between treatments and how to sequence them. For this reason, a new survey of expert opinion was undertaken to bridge gaps between the research evidence and key clinical decisions. The results of this new survey, which was completed by 58 experts, are presented in The Expert Consensus Guideline Series: Medication Treatment of Bipolar Disorder 2000, which was published in April 2000 as a Postgraduate Medicine Special Report. In this article, the authors describe the methodology used in the survey and summarize the clinical recommendations given in the resulting guidelines. The expert panel reached consensus on many key strategies, including acute and preventive treatment of mania (euphoric, mixed, and dysphoric subtypes), depression, rapid cycling, and approaches to managing treatment resistance and comorbid psychiatric conditions. Use of a mood stabilizer is recommended in all phases of treatment. Divalproex (especially for mixed or dysphoric subtypes) and lithium are the primary mood stabilizers for both acute and preventive treatment of mania. If monotherapy with these agents fails, the next recommended intervention is to combine them. This combination of lithium and divalproex can then serve as the foundation to which other medications are added if needed. Carbamazepine is the leading alternative mood stabilizer for mania. The experts rated the other new anticonvulsants as second‐line options (i.e., their use is recommended if lithium, divalproex, and carbamazepine fail or are contraindicated). For milder depression, a mood stabilizer, especially lithium, may be used as monotherapy. Divalproex and lamotrigine are other first‐line choices. For more severe depression, the experts recommend combining a standard antidepressant with lithium or divalproex. Bupropion, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and venlafaxine are preferred antidepressants. The antidepressants should usually be tapered 2–6 months after remission. Monotherapy with divalproex is recommended for the initial treatment of either depression or mania in rapid‐cycling bipolar disorder. Antipsychotics are recommended for use in combination with the above regimens for mania or depression with psychosis, and as potential adjuncts in nonpsychotic episodes. Atypical antipsychotics, especially olanzapine and risperidone, were generally preferred over conventional antipsychotics. The guidelines also include recommendations concerning the use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), clozapine, thyroid hormone, stimulants, and various novel agents for patients with treatment‐refractory bipolar illness. The experts reached high levels of consensus on key steps in treating bipolar disorder despite obvious gaps in high‐quality data. To evaluate many of the treatment options in this survey, the experts had to extrapolate beyond controlled data; however, their recommendations are generally conservative. Experts give their strongest support to initial strategies and medications for which high‐quality research data or longstanding patterns of clinical usage exist. Within the limits of expert opinion and with the understanding that new research data may take precedence, these guidelines provide clear pathways for addressing common clinical questions and can be used to inform clinicians and educate patients about the relative merits of a variety of interventions.

Treatment of Agitation in Elderly Persons with Dementia: A Summary of the Expert Consensus Guidelines

Agitation frequently accompanies dementia, causing severe stress for caregivers and often leading to institutionalization. There are limited controlled data concerning the best methods of treating this agitation, which led the authors to undertake a survey of experts in the field on unanswered clini

Expert Consensus Survey on Medication Adherence in Psychiatric Patients and Use of a Digital Medicine System

BACKGROUND There is an unmet need to objectively assess adherence problems that are a common cause of unexplained or unexpected suboptimal outcome. A digital medicine system (DMS) has been developed to address this need in patients with serious mental illness. OBJECTIVE To conduct a quantitative expert consensus survey to (1) assess relative importance of causes of suboptimal outcomes, (2) examine modalities used to assess adherence, (3) provide guidance on when and how to use the DMS in clinical practice once available, and (4) suggest interventions for specific reasons for nonadherence. METHODS A panel of 58 experts in psychiatry completed a 23-question survey (October 13 through December 23, 2013) and rated their responses on a 9-point Likert scale. A χ² test of score distributions was used to determine consensus (P < .05). RESULTS The panel rated adherence as the most important factor in suboptimal outcomes and yet the least likely to be assessed accurately. All predefined uses of the DMS received high mean first-line ratings (≥ 7.4). The experts recognized the utility of the DMS in managing adherence problems, identified clinical situations appropriate for DMS, and assessed potential benefits and challenges of this technology. Consensus was reached on first-line interventions for 10 of 11 reasons for nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS The results provide a guide to clinicians on the evaluation of suboptimal outcomes, when and how to use the DMS, and the most appropriate interventions to address detected adherence problems.