John P. Docherty

The expert consensus guideline series

Abstract Over the past decade, many new epilepsy treatments have been approved in the United States, promising better quality of life for many with epilepsy. However, clinicians must now choose among a growing number of treatment options and possible combinations. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) form the basis for evidence-based decision making about best treatment options, but they rarely compare active therapies, making decisions difficult. When medical literature is lacking, expert opinion is helpful, but may contain potential biases. The expert consensus method is a new approach for statistically analyzing pooled opinion to minimize biases inherent in other systems of summarizing expert opinion. We used this method to analyze expert opinion on treatment of three epilepsy syndromes (idiopathic generalized epilepsy, symptomatic localization-related epilepsy, and symptomatic generalized epilepsy) and status epilepticus. For all three syndromes, the experts recommended the same general treatment strategy. As a first step, they recommend monotherapy. If this fails, a second monotherapy should be tried. Following this, the experts are split between additional trials of monotherapy and a combination of two therapies. If this fails, most agree the next step should be additional trials of two therapies, with less agreement as to the next best step after this. One exception to these recommendations is that the experts recommend an evaluation for epilepsy surgery after the third failed step for symptomatic localization-related epilepsies. The results of the expert survey were used to develop user-friendly treatment guidelines concerning overall treatment strategies and choice of specific medications for different syndromes and for status epilepticus.

Psychological Factors in the Prognosis of Malignant Melanoma: A Prospective Study*

&NA; Sixty‐four patients with Stage I or II malignant melanoma who were apparently disease free rated the amount of adjustment needed to cope with their illness on a scale of 1 to 100. The resultant figure was called the melanoma adjustment score. Twenty‐nine patients who relapsed within 1 year of surgery reported a score of 53 ± 31 (mean ± SD); 35 nonrelapsers reported a score of 80 ± 20, p < 0.001. Based upon analysis of indivual melanoma adjustment scores in the first 31 patients, we predicted that subjects scoring ≥ 65 would stay in remission, whereas those scoring < 65 would relapse. Applying this prospectively to the next 33 patients we correctly identified 25 of 33 outcomes (76%), p < 0.03. This psychological variable was independent of known biological prognostic factors, which did not predict 1 year survival. The melanoma adjustment score was also independent of the number of positive lymph nodes, which did correlate with outcome in these patients. The results suggest a role for psychological factors in the one year prognosis of this malignancy.

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.

Lithium attenuates the activation-euphoria but not the psychosis induced by d-amphetamine in schizophrenia

Abstractd-Amphetamine (20 mg) was administered intravenously in a double-blind design to 17 schizophrenic patients with and without concurrent 3-week lithium carbonate pretreatment to evaluate the lithium attenuation of d-amphetamine effects which we had observed in affective disorder patients. Lithium significantly attenuated the acute d-amphetamine-induced changes in an activation-euphoria cluster and in the mannerisms and posturing item of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Because the psychosis-increasing effects of d-amphetamine were not significantly decreased, it is conceivable that the d-amphetamine-induced changes in activation and euphoria and in psychosis are regulated by different dopamine mechanisms. The small clinical effects seen at 3 weeks of lithium treatment in schizophrenic patients could be mediated by dopamine.

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.

d-Amphetamine raises serum prolactin in man: Evaluations after chronic placebo, lithium and pimozide treatment

Abstract One of the major biochemical effects of d-amphetamine is the release and uptake inhibition of dopamine (DA). We measured the effect of d-amphetamine upon prolactin release which is inhibited by DA and stimulated by serotonin. d-Amphetamine (20 mg i.v.) significantly raised the serum prolactin levels of drug-free schizophrenic patients over preinfusion levels and levels following a paired placebo lactose infusion. Amphetamine infusions were repeated after both chronic DA blockade with pimozide and after chronic lithium treatment that has been reported to attenuate amphetamine effects. These chronic pretreatments did not prevent significant increases in prolactin following d-amphetamine infusions. Pimozide raised preinfusion prolactin levels but lithium had no effect. Further studies are needed to clarify the d-amphetamine-induced rise in prolactin.

Why do psychiatric patients stop antipsychotic medication? A systematic review of reasons for nonadherence to medication in patients with serious mental illness

Background Antipsychotic medication reduces the severity of serious mental illness (SMI) and improves patient outcomes only when medicines were taken as prescribed. Nonadherence to the treatment of SMI increases the risk of relapse and hospitalization and reduces the quality of life. It is necessary to understand the factors influencing nonadherence to medication in order to identify appropriate interventions. This systematic review assessed the published evidence on modifiable reasons for nonadherence to antipsychotic medication in patients with SMI. Methods Articles published between January 1, 2005, and September 10, 2015, were searched on MEDLINE through PubMed. Abstracts were independently screened by 2 randomly assigned authors for inclusion, and disagreement was resolved by another author. Selected full-text articles were divided among all authors for review. Results A qualitative analysis of data from 36 articles identified 11 categories of reasons for nonadherence. Poor insight was identified as a reason for nonadherence in 55.6% (20/36) of studies, followed by substance abuse (36.1%, 13/36), a negative attitude toward medication (30.5%, 11/36), medication side effects (27.8%, 10/36), and cognitive impairments (13.4%, 7/36). A key reason directly associated with intentional nonadherence was a negative attitude toward medication, a mediator of effects of insight and therapeutic alliance. Substance abuse was the only reason consistently associated with unintentional nonadherence, regardless of type and stage of SMI. Discussion Although adherence research is inherently biased because of numerous methodological limitations and specific reasons under investigation, reasons for nonadherence consistently identified as significant across studies likely reflect valid existing associations with important clinical implications. Conclusion This systematic review suggests that a negative attitude toward medication and substance abuse are consistent reasons for nonadherence to antipsychotic medication among people with SMI. Adherence enhancement approaches that specifically target these reasons may improve adherence in a high-risk group. However, it is also important to identify drivers of poor adherence specific to each patient in selecting and implementing intervention strategies.

The impact of the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) on prescribing practices: an analysis of data from a large midwestern state.

BACKGROUND The Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) was a series of effectiveness trials. The results of these trials began publication in September 2005. Among other findings, these studies were interpreted to suggest that (1) second-generation antipsychotics might have fewer advantages over first-generation antipsychotics than had been generally thought; (2) among the agents assessed, olanzapine had the best efficacy outcome; and (3) after treatment failure with a second-generation antipsychotic, the most efficacious second-line medication is clozapine. To examine the actual impact on practice of these publications, we looked at change in physician prescribing behavior based on these 3 conclusions before and after publication of CATIE. METHOD Rates of antipsychotic medication prescriptions to 51,459 patients with an ICD-9 code of 295 for schizophrenia were extracted from a Missouri Medicaid claims database. χ² Tests were used to compare the rates of prescribing antipsychotic medications before and after each of 3 key CATIE publications (time 1 was September 2005, time 2 was December 2006, and time 3 was April 2006). RESULTS At all time points, we demonstrated a decrease in prescriptions by all prescribers for olanzapine (P < .0001). One year after time 1, we found an increase in prescriptions by all prescribers for aripiprazole (P < .0001). No statistically significant increases in clozapine prescribing were observed. Also, a small but statistically significant increase was seen in prescriptions of perphenazine (P < .02 at time 3). However, this increase occurred only for prescriptions written by psychiatrists and not other prescribers. CONCLUSIONS We found some evidence in our sample that the publication of the results from CATIE had a small but statistically significant effect on prescribing habits of psychiatrists but not other physicians in our sample population. However, larger changes occurred in prescribing behavior that were largely unrelated to the CATIE trial. We propose a hypothesis to explain the direction of observed changes.