Suicidal behaviors are common in older adults – and especially older women, new research suggests.

In a meta-analysis that included 20 studies and more than 3 million total individuals living in long-term care (LTC), the prevalence rate for suicidal behavior was more than 6%. In addition, the most common of these behaviors was suicidal ideation.

The prevalence was much higher in women than in men.

These high rates underline the need for clinicians to exercise “extra caution” when assessing elderly people living in a long-term care facility, coinvestigator Syeda Beenish Bareeqa, MBBS, clinical researcher, Jinnah Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan, and research observer, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Missed diagnoses or undertreatment in this population can lead to deleterious health outcomes,” Dr. Bareeqa said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Underdiagnosed, undertreated

In the United States, about 42% of adults 70 years and older will live in LTC, either in an assisted care facility or a nursing home, Dr. Bareeqa noted.

Although many LTC residents have a mood disorder, previous research shows that fewer than 25% of cases are diagnosed and treated, she said.

Dr. Bareeqa added that suicide – and its association with factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, depression, and cyberbullying – is a topic of increasing interest to researchers. She and her colleagues wanted to investigate suicidal behaviors in the setting of LTC.

The researchers conducted a literature search for studies of suicidal behavior among LTC residents over aged 60 years. They examined general suicidal behavior and the most common subtypes: suicide ideation, suicide attempts, completed suicide, self-destructive behavior, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

The analysis included 20 studies and 3 million individuals living in LTC. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 5) and Australia (n = 4).

Results showed an estimated suicidal behavior prevalence rate of 6.4% (.064; 95% confidence interval, .057 to .070), or 64 per 100,000 persons.

A rate this high is “alarming and unexpected,” said Dr. Bareeqa. She noted most of the studies included in the analysis were conducted in developed countries with advanced health care systems.

The World Health Organization reports the suicide rate per 100,000 older adults (aged 75 years and older) is 50 for men and 16 for women, but this is not stratified by living settings, Dr. Bareeqa noted.
 

Higher rates in women

In the current analysis, 5 of the 20 studies had low risk of bias, 14 had moderate risk, and 1 had high risk, Dr. Bareeqa reported.

In subgroup analyses, the researchers found much of the suicidal behavior was driven by studies out of Australia, where the prevalence of suicidal behaviors was 36.9% (95% CI, 9.2-64.7) vs. 1.4% in the U.S. (95% CI, 1.0-1.8).

Another surprising finding was the prevalence of suicidal behaviors among women (15.8%), which was much higher than among men (7.9%). “Male gender is a well-established risk factor for suicide in the medical literature but this is not the case in our study,” said Dr. Bareeqa.

In addition, the analysis showed suicidal ideation was the most common type of suicidal behavior. In a pooled population of around 2 million people in eight studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was 12%.

For psychiatric illnesses accompanying suicidal behavior, the prevalence of depression alone was 14.4%, which was much higher than the rate of 5.1% for multiple comorbidities – including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychotic disorder, history of previous suicide attempt, delusion, delirium, and hallucination.

Although depression and other psychiatric conditions may help explain suicidal behavior in older adults, Dr. Bareeqa said physical illness also plays a major role.

“Illnesses like cancer or end-stage organ failure, which are quite common with advancing age, are debilitating and in some instances incurable. These medical problems create a breeding ground for mental health problems and can eventually lead to devastating outcomes such as suicide,” she said.

She noted the importance of a “multipronged approach” to prevent suicide among older people in LTC facilities.

In addition, her research team aims to assess the quality of care provided by LTC facilities. “Maybe we can get to the root of this problem and devise strategies to improve it,” she said.
 

‘Not uncommon’

In an interview with this news organization Rajesh R. Tampi, MBBS, professor and chairman, department of psychiatry, Creighton University and Catholic Health Initiatives Health Behavioral Health Services, Omaha, Neb., said the results suggest that, despite the risk for bias among the included studies, “suicidal behaviors are not uncommon among older adults in LTC.”

The analysis describes only associations “but does not indicate causality,” said Dr. Tampi, past president of the AAGP. He was not involved with the research.

Additional subgroup analyses should yield information on possible risk factors for suicidal behaviors in LTC, such as depression, anxiety, and chronic pain, he added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Suicidal behaviors are common in older adults – and especially older women, new research suggests.

In a meta-analysis that included 20 studies and more than 3 million total individuals living in long-term care (LTC), the prevalence rate for suicidal behavior was more than 6%. In addition, the most common of these behaviors was suicidal ideation.

The prevalence was much higher in women than in men.

These high rates underline the need for clinicians to exercise “extra caution” when assessing elderly people living in a long-term care facility, coinvestigator Syeda Beenish Bareeqa, MBBS, clinical researcher, Jinnah Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan, and research observer, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Missed diagnoses or undertreatment in this population can lead to deleterious health outcomes,” Dr. Bareeqa said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Underdiagnosed, undertreated

In the United States, about 42% of adults 70 years and older will live in LTC, either in an assisted care facility or a nursing home, Dr. Bareeqa noted.

Although many LTC residents have a mood disorder, previous research shows that fewer than 25% of cases are diagnosed and treated, she said.

Dr. Bareeqa added that suicide – and its association with factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, depression, and cyberbullying – is a topic of increasing interest to researchers. She and her colleagues wanted to investigate suicidal behaviors in the setting of LTC.

The researchers conducted a literature search for studies of suicidal behavior among LTC residents over aged 60 years. They examined general suicidal behavior and the most common subtypes: suicide ideation, suicide attempts, completed suicide, self-destructive behavior, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

The analysis included 20 studies and 3 million individuals living in LTC. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 5) and Australia (n = 4).

Results showed an estimated suicidal behavior prevalence rate of 6.4% (.064; 95% confidence interval, .057 to .070), or 64 per 100,000 persons.

A rate this high is “alarming and unexpected,” said Dr. Bareeqa. She noted most of the studies included in the analysis were conducted in developed countries with advanced health care systems.

The World Health Organization reports the suicide rate per 100,000 older adults (aged 75 years and older) is 50 for men and 16 for women, but this is not stratified by living settings, Dr. Bareeqa noted.
 

Higher rates in women

In the current analysis, 5 of the 20 studies had low risk of bias, 14 had moderate risk, and 1 had high risk, Dr. Bareeqa reported.

In subgroup analyses, the researchers found much of the suicidal behavior was driven by studies out of Australia, where the prevalence of suicidal behaviors was 36.9% (95% CI, 9.2-64.7) vs. 1.4% in the U.S. (95% CI, 1.0-1.8).

Another surprising finding was the prevalence of suicidal behaviors among women (15.8%), which was much higher than among men (7.9%). “Male gender is a well-established risk factor for suicide in the medical literature but this is not the case in our study,” said Dr. Bareeqa.

In addition, the analysis showed suicidal ideation was the most common type of suicidal behavior. In a pooled population of around 2 million people in eight studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was 12%.

For psychiatric illnesses accompanying suicidal behavior, the prevalence of depression alone was 14.4%, which was much higher than the rate of 5.1% for multiple comorbidities – including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychotic disorder, history of previous suicide attempt, delusion, delirium, and hallucination.

Although depression and other psychiatric conditions may help explain suicidal behavior in older adults, Dr. Bareeqa said physical illness also plays a major role.

“Illnesses like cancer or end-stage organ failure, which are quite common with advancing age, are debilitating and in some instances incurable. These medical problems create a breeding ground for mental health problems and can eventually lead to devastating outcomes such as suicide,” she said.

She noted the importance of a “multipronged approach” to prevent suicide among older people in LTC facilities.

In addition, her research team aims to assess the quality of care provided by LTC facilities. “Maybe we can get to the root of this problem and devise strategies to improve it,” she said.
 

‘Not uncommon’

In an interview with this news organization Rajesh R. Tampi, MBBS, professor and chairman, department of psychiatry, Creighton University and Catholic Health Initiatives Health Behavioral Health Services, Omaha, Neb., said the results suggest that, despite the risk for bias among the included studies, “suicidal behaviors are not uncommon among older adults in LTC.”

The analysis describes only associations “but does not indicate causality,” said Dr. Tampi, past president of the AAGP. He was not involved with the research.

Additional subgroup analyses should yield information on possible risk factors for suicidal behaviors in LTC, such as depression, anxiety, and chronic pain, he added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Suicidal behaviors are common in older adults – and especially older women, new research suggests.

In a meta-analysis that included 20 studies and more than 3 million total individuals living in long-term care (LTC), the prevalence rate for suicidal behavior was more than 6%. In addition, the most common of these behaviors was suicidal ideation.

The prevalence was much higher in women than in men.

These high rates underline the need for clinicians to exercise “extra caution” when assessing elderly people living in a long-term care facility, coinvestigator Syeda Beenish Bareeqa, MBBS, clinical researcher, Jinnah Medical and Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan, and research observer, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said in an interview.

“Missed diagnoses or undertreatment in this population can lead to deleterious health outcomes,” Dr. Bareeqa said.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Underdiagnosed, undertreated

In the United States, about 42% of adults 70 years and older will live in LTC, either in an assisted care facility or a nursing home, Dr. Bareeqa noted.

Although many LTC residents have a mood disorder, previous research shows that fewer than 25% of cases are diagnosed and treated, she said.

Dr. Bareeqa added that suicide – and its association with factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic, depression, and cyberbullying – is a topic of increasing interest to researchers. She and her colleagues wanted to investigate suicidal behaviors in the setting of LTC.

The researchers conducted a literature search for studies of suicidal behavior among LTC residents over aged 60 years. They examined general suicidal behavior and the most common subtypes: suicide ideation, suicide attempts, completed suicide, self-destructive behavior, and nonsuicidal self-injury.

The analysis included 20 studies and 3 million individuals living in LTC. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 5) and Australia (n = 4).

Results showed an estimated suicidal behavior prevalence rate of 6.4% (.064; 95% confidence interval, .057 to .070), or 64 per 100,000 persons.

A rate this high is “alarming and unexpected,” said Dr. Bareeqa. She noted most of the studies included in the analysis were conducted in developed countries with advanced health care systems.

The World Health Organization reports the suicide rate per 100,000 older adults (aged 75 years and older) is 50 for men and 16 for women, but this is not stratified by living settings, Dr. Bareeqa noted.
 

Higher rates in women

In the current analysis, 5 of the 20 studies had low risk of bias, 14 had moderate risk, and 1 had high risk, Dr. Bareeqa reported.

In subgroup analyses, the researchers found much of the suicidal behavior was driven by studies out of Australia, where the prevalence of suicidal behaviors was 36.9% (95% CI, 9.2-64.7) vs. 1.4% in the U.S. (95% CI, 1.0-1.8).

Another surprising finding was the prevalence of suicidal behaviors among women (15.8%), which was much higher than among men (7.9%). “Male gender is a well-established risk factor for suicide in the medical literature but this is not the case in our study,” said Dr. Bareeqa.

In addition, the analysis showed suicidal ideation was the most common type of suicidal behavior. In a pooled population of around 2 million people in eight studies, the prevalence of suicidal ideation was 12%.

For psychiatric illnesses accompanying suicidal behavior, the prevalence of depression alone was 14.4%, which was much higher than the rate of 5.1% for multiple comorbidities – including depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychotic disorder, history of previous suicide attempt, delusion, delirium, and hallucination.

Although depression and other psychiatric conditions may help explain suicidal behavior in older adults, Dr. Bareeqa said physical illness also plays a major role.

“Illnesses like cancer or end-stage organ failure, which are quite common with advancing age, are debilitating and in some instances incurable. These medical problems create a breeding ground for mental health problems and can eventually lead to devastating outcomes such as suicide,” she said.

She noted the importance of a “multipronged approach” to prevent suicide among older people in LTC facilities.

In addition, her research team aims to assess the quality of care provided by LTC facilities. “Maybe we can get to the root of this problem and devise strategies to improve it,” she said.
 

‘Not uncommon’

In an interview with this news organization Rajesh R. Tampi, MBBS, professor and chairman, department of psychiatry, Creighton University and Catholic Health Initiatives Health Behavioral Health Services, Omaha, Neb., said the results suggest that, despite the risk for bias among the included studies, “suicidal behaviors are not uncommon among older adults in LTC.”

The analysis describes only associations “but does not indicate causality,” said Dr. Tampi, past president of the AAGP. He was not involved with the research.

Additional subgroup analyses should yield information on possible risk factors for suicidal behaviors in LTC, such as depression, anxiety, and chronic pain, he added.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On his last shift in the last hockey game of the regular season, our 14-year-old grandson broke his arm. Although this was his first fracture, the rest of the nuclear family has had ample experience with orthopedic trauma over the last year, both planned and unplanned.

As I drove Peter and my daughter-in-law to his first postsetting and casting appointment I told him how sorry I was that he had been told “no contact sports for the next 3 months.” This was a tough pill for a kid eager to begin his first high school lacrosse season. Then I asked him what the doctor had told him he could do in the way of activity.

Based on personal and professional experience I was not surprised when he told me that no one had suggested things he could be doing. In fact, being a cautious and thoughtful kid, he was concerned about what he should be doing around the house let alone any athletic activities. It turns out he wasn’t even lifting his laptop computer with two hands because some nurse had told him not to lift anything over 2 pounds.

I told him “Peter, even some of the most experienced doctors focus on the ‘can’ts’ and forget to tell you the ‘cans’ and ‘shoulds.’ While you’re in the waiting room make up a mental list of what you would like to be doing that you aren’t.”

As he climbed back in the car for the ride home I asked how the visit went. The x-ray showed good alignment and the doctor was pleased. But, as I predicted, they were already on the launch pad to the receptionist to make a follow-up appointment without the physician uttering a single word about what activities he could resume. Always a very coachable kid, Peter piped up with the list he had created in the waiting room and was relieved to hear that he could do anything as long as it didn’t hurt. In fact, the doctor encouraged him to use his fingers because it might speed the healing.

Not every patient, regardless of age, is as cautious as my grandson and in some circumstances the physician must err on the side of emphasizing the “don’ts.” However, in my experience, too many physicians forget to include a generous list of “can do’s” in their visit closing discussions. This oversight is a mistake for several reasons.

First, and maybe most importantly, even a brief discussion of “can do’s” can soften the depressing message that the patient will not be able to do things he or she enjoys. I can’t quote the references but I am sure there is plenty of evidence that depression slows the healing process.

Second, and this is particularly true in older patients with orthopedic problems – failure to include a plan for return to activity can hinder recovery. I can recall more than a few patients who were seen in the emergency department and diagnosed with sprains but not given even the simplest instructions on how to begin moving the injured joint. When they finally returned to see me we had to begin the painful and unnecessary project of thawing a frozen joint.

Fortunately, we have evolved past the era when best rest was near the top of the list of our recommended remedies. However, there still remains a bias against activity in some situations. The most recent example is the evolving strategies for the management of concussion. There is some evidence that involving the patient in a return to activity plan may shorten the time to recovery. The myth about brain rest has been slow to die.

Finally, providing the patient with a personalized list of “can do’s” makes good business sense because it can head off those time-gobbling call backs that tie up you and your office staff. As an experienced physician, you have probably learned the most frequently asked “Can Jason do ... ?” questions. Make your own list and give the patient your answers. An ounce of anticipatory guidance is worth hours on the telephone or sorting through the email inbox.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

On his last shift in the last hockey game of the regular season, our 14-year-old grandson broke his arm. Although this was his first fracture, the rest of the nuclear family has had ample experience with orthopedic trauma over the last year, both planned and unplanned.

As I drove Peter and my daughter-in-law to his first postsetting and casting appointment I told him how sorry I was that he had been told “no contact sports for the next 3 months.” This was a tough pill for a kid eager to begin his first high school lacrosse season. Then I asked him what the doctor had told him he could do in the way of activity.

Based on personal and professional experience I was not surprised when he told me that no one had suggested things he could be doing. In fact, being a cautious and thoughtful kid, he was concerned about what he should be doing around the house let alone any athletic activities. It turns out he wasn’t even lifting his laptop computer with two hands because some nurse had told him not to lift anything over 2 pounds.

I told him “Peter, even some of the most experienced doctors focus on the ‘can’ts’ and forget to tell you the ‘cans’ and ‘shoulds.’ While you’re in the waiting room make up a mental list of what you would like to be doing that you aren’t.”

As he climbed back in the car for the ride home I asked how the visit went. The x-ray showed good alignment and the doctor was pleased. But, as I predicted, they were already on the launch pad to the receptionist to make a follow-up appointment without the physician uttering a single word about what activities he could resume. Always a very coachable kid, Peter piped up with the list he had created in the waiting room and was relieved to hear that he could do anything as long as it didn’t hurt. In fact, the doctor encouraged him to use his fingers because it might speed the healing.

Not every patient, regardless of age, is as cautious as my grandson and in some circumstances the physician must err on the side of emphasizing the “don’ts.” However, in my experience, too many physicians forget to include a generous list of “can do’s” in their visit closing discussions. This oversight is a mistake for several reasons.

First, and maybe most importantly, even a brief discussion of “can do’s” can soften the depressing message that the patient will not be able to do things he or she enjoys. I can’t quote the references but I am sure there is plenty of evidence that depression slows the healing process.

Second, and this is particularly true in older patients with orthopedic problems – failure to include a plan for return to activity can hinder recovery. I can recall more than a few patients who were seen in the emergency department and diagnosed with sprains but not given even the simplest instructions on how to begin moving the injured joint. When they finally returned to see me we had to begin the painful and unnecessary project of thawing a frozen joint.

Fortunately, we have evolved past the era when best rest was near the top of the list of our recommended remedies. However, there still remains a bias against activity in some situations. The most recent example is the evolving strategies for the management of concussion. There is some evidence that involving the patient in a return to activity plan may shorten the time to recovery. The myth about brain rest has been slow to die.

Finally, providing the patient with a personalized list of “can do’s” makes good business sense because it can head off those time-gobbling call backs that tie up you and your office staff. As an experienced physician, you have probably learned the most frequently asked “Can Jason do ... ?” questions. Make your own list and give the patient your answers. An ounce of anticipatory guidance is worth hours on the telephone or sorting through the email inbox.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

On his last shift in the last hockey game of the regular season, our 14-year-old grandson broke his arm. Although this was his first fracture, the rest of the nuclear family has had ample experience with orthopedic trauma over the last year, both planned and unplanned.

As I drove Peter and my daughter-in-law to his first postsetting and casting appointment I told him how sorry I was that he had been told “no contact sports for the next 3 months.” This was a tough pill for a kid eager to begin his first high school lacrosse season. Then I asked him what the doctor had told him he could do in the way of activity.

Based on personal and professional experience I was not surprised when he told me that no one had suggested things he could be doing. In fact, being a cautious and thoughtful kid, he was concerned about what he should be doing around the house let alone any athletic activities. It turns out he wasn’t even lifting his laptop computer with two hands because some nurse had told him not to lift anything over 2 pounds.

I told him “Peter, even some of the most experienced doctors focus on the ‘can’ts’ and forget to tell you the ‘cans’ and ‘shoulds.’ While you’re in the waiting room make up a mental list of what you would like to be doing that you aren’t.”

As he climbed back in the car for the ride home I asked how the visit went. The x-ray showed good alignment and the doctor was pleased. But, as I predicted, they were already on the launch pad to the receptionist to make a follow-up appointment without the physician uttering a single word about what activities he could resume. Always a very coachable kid, Peter piped up with the list he had created in the waiting room and was relieved to hear that he could do anything as long as it didn’t hurt. In fact, the doctor encouraged him to use his fingers because it might speed the healing.

Not every patient, regardless of age, is as cautious as my grandson and in some circumstances the physician must err on the side of emphasizing the “don’ts.” However, in my experience, too many physicians forget to include a generous list of “can do’s” in their visit closing discussions. This oversight is a mistake for several reasons.

First, and maybe most importantly, even a brief discussion of “can do’s” can soften the depressing message that the patient will not be able to do things he or she enjoys. I can’t quote the references but I am sure there is plenty of evidence that depression slows the healing process.

Second, and this is particularly true in older patients with orthopedic problems – failure to include a plan for return to activity can hinder recovery. I can recall more than a few patients who were seen in the emergency department and diagnosed with sprains but not given even the simplest instructions on how to begin moving the injured joint. When they finally returned to see me we had to begin the painful and unnecessary project of thawing a frozen joint.

Fortunately, we have evolved past the era when best rest was near the top of the list of our recommended remedies. However, there still remains a bias against activity in some situations. The most recent example is the evolving strategies for the management of concussion. There is some evidence that involving the patient in a return to activity plan may shorten the time to recovery. The myth about brain rest has been slow to die.

Finally, providing the patient with a personalized list of “can do’s” makes good business sense because it can head off those time-gobbling call backs that tie up you and your office staff. As an experienced physician, you have probably learned the most frequently asked “Can Jason do ... ?” questions. Make your own list and give the patient your answers. An ounce of anticipatory guidance is worth hours on the telephone or sorting through the email inbox.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at pdnews@mdedge.com.

Intravenous gentamicin therapy was associated with new laminin 332 – a major component of anchoring filaments in the dermal-epidermal junction – in the skin of five pediatric patients with intermediate or severe junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) caused by nonsense variants.

The newly generated structural protein persisted during the 3-month randomized clinical trial and was associated with significant wound closure – with no signs of ototoxic effects, nephrotoxic effects, or anti–laminin 332 autoantibody induction, investigators recently reported in JAMA Dermatology.

JEB is a rare, autosomal recessive disorder caused mainly by nonsense variants (i.e., mutations) in the LAMA3, LAMB3, or LAMC2 genes that encode laminin, resulting in widespread blisters and erosions of the skin. Current treatment is limited to supportive management and palliative care, and children with its severe subtype are likely to die within the first year of life.

“With data indicating a robust response to short-term gentamicin treatment and the marked stability of laminin 332, we envision that gentamicin could be delivered as a short-term pulse therapy every 2-3 months for patients with JEB caused by nonsense variants,” the researchers wrote.

Of the five patients, ages 3 months to 10 years, three received 7.5 mg/kg IV gentamicin daily for 14 days, and two received 10 mg/kg daily for 24 days at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

All had confirmed nonsense variants in LAMA3 or LAMB3 in one or two alleles, and all had minimal laminin 332 expression at baseline as determined by immunofluorescence. After treatment, each of the children had increased, sustained expression of laminin 332.

The researchers monitored three open wounds in each patient. By 1 month, seven of nine wounds in those receiving the lower-dose therapy and all of the wounds in those receiving the higher-dose therapy showed at least 50% closure. By 3 months, eight of nine wounds in the lower-dose group, and all wounds in the higher-dose group showed greater than 85% closure.

In an interview, senior investigators Mei Chen, PhD, professor of dermatology, and David T. Woodley, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, both at USC, emphasized laminin’s long half-life.“Once these skin structural proteins are generated at the dermal-epidermal junction, they are long-lasting structures, which means the therapy can be pulsed rather than continuously delivered, which can obviate some of the known side effects of the medication,” Dr. Woodley said.

Gentamicin, an aminoglycoside, works as a “read-through therapy,” inducing ribosomal read-through of premature termination codons (PTCs) caused by nonsense mutations. The read-through allows translation to proceed and full-length proteins to be generated.

Gentamicin read-through therapy is also being investigated for recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) attributable to nonsense mutations. The culprit mutations in this form of EB occur in a gene that encodes collagen type VII alpha 1, which, like laminin, is responsible for dermal-epidermal adherence. A clinical trial of intravenous gentamicin for RDEB is ongoing at USC, Dr. Chen said.


 

EBS-MD case report

It may also have a role in treating epidermolysis bullosa simplex with muscular dystrophy (EBS-MD), according to investigators in Madrid. Their case report, published in JAMA Dermatology, details how two 14-day courses of infused gentamicin therapy were followed by re-expression of plectin in the skin for 4-5 months and mild improvement in symptoms in one patient, a woman in her 30s, with a homozygous nonsense variant in PLEC1.

In an editorial accompanying the two reports, Anna L. Bruckner, MD, MSCS, professor of dermatology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues expressed cautious optimism and said that additional research on the feasibility, possible cumulative toxic effects, risk of microbial resistance, and overall clinical relevance is needed.

Still, the “investigators should be applauded for taking advantage of a readily available systemic treatment to target cutaneous and extracutaneous symptoms of patients who have very limited treatment options at this time,” they wrote. While all forms of EB are considered orphan disorders, JEB and EBS-MD have received less research attention than RDEB.

The JEB study evaluated patients with clinical assessments/quality of life surveys and with a validated clinical score that considers skin and mucosae – the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI). There were small positive changes in EBDASI scores, but data were incomplete and therefore difficult to interpret.

A “noteworthy” finding, the authors wrote, were improvements in emotions and functioning in two of the children who were eligible given their older ages for assessment with the Skindex-16 quality-of-life survey. The improvements suggest “potential psychosocial benefits” of the gentamicin therapy.

The JEB study was supported in part by grants from the EB Research Partnership and EB Medical Research Foundation and an award from the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. In addition to the grants, Dr. Woodley and Dr. Chen reported receiving personal fees from Phoenix Tissue Repair outside of the submitted work. For the EBS-MD case report, the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Bruckner, corresponding author of the editorial, reported grants from several companies outside the submitted work.

Intravenous gentamicin therapy was associated with new laminin 332 – a major component of anchoring filaments in the dermal-epidermal junction – in the skin of five pediatric patients with intermediate or severe junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) caused by nonsense variants.

The newly generated structural protein persisted during the 3-month randomized clinical trial and was associated with significant wound closure – with no signs of ototoxic effects, nephrotoxic effects, or anti–laminin 332 autoantibody induction, investigators recently reported in JAMA Dermatology.

JEB is a rare, autosomal recessive disorder caused mainly by nonsense variants (i.e., mutations) in the LAMA3, LAMB3, or LAMC2 genes that encode laminin, resulting in widespread blisters and erosions of the skin. Current treatment is limited to supportive management and palliative care, and children with its severe subtype are likely to die within the first year of life.

“With data indicating a robust response to short-term gentamicin treatment and the marked stability of laminin 332, we envision that gentamicin could be delivered as a short-term pulse therapy every 2-3 months for patients with JEB caused by nonsense variants,” the researchers wrote.

Of the five patients, ages 3 months to 10 years, three received 7.5 mg/kg IV gentamicin daily for 14 days, and two received 10 mg/kg daily for 24 days at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

All had confirmed nonsense variants in LAMA3 or LAMB3 in one or two alleles, and all had minimal laminin 332 expression at baseline as determined by immunofluorescence. After treatment, each of the children had increased, sustained expression of laminin 332.

The researchers monitored three open wounds in each patient. By 1 month, seven of nine wounds in those receiving the lower-dose therapy and all of the wounds in those receiving the higher-dose therapy showed at least 50% closure. By 3 months, eight of nine wounds in the lower-dose group, and all wounds in the higher-dose group showed greater than 85% closure.

In an interview, senior investigators Mei Chen, PhD, professor of dermatology, and David T. Woodley, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, both at USC, emphasized laminin’s long half-life.“Once these skin structural proteins are generated at the dermal-epidermal junction, they are long-lasting structures, which means the therapy can be pulsed rather than continuously delivered, which can obviate some of the known side effects of the medication,” Dr. Woodley said.

Gentamicin, an aminoglycoside, works as a “read-through therapy,” inducing ribosomal read-through of premature termination codons (PTCs) caused by nonsense mutations. The read-through allows translation to proceed and full-length proteins to be generated.

Gentamicin read-through therapy is also being investigated for recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) attributable to nonsense mutations. The culprit mutations in this form of EB occur in a gene that encodes collagen type VII alpha 1, which, like laminin, is responsible for dermal-epidermal adherence. A clinical trial of intravenous gentamicin for RDEB is ongoing at USC, Dr. Chen said.


 

EBS-MD case report

It may also have a role in treating epidermolysis bullosa simplex with muscular dystrophy (EBS-MD), according to investigators in Madrid. Their case report, published in JAMA Dermatology, details how two 14-day courses of infused gentamicin therapy were followed by re-expression of plectin in the skin for 4-5 months and mild improvement in symptoms in one patient, a woman in her 30s, with a homozygous nonsense variant in PLEC1.

In an editorial accompanying the two reports, Anna L. Bruckner, MD, MSCS, professor of dermatology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues expressed cautious optimism and said that additional research on the feasibility, possible cumulative toxic effects, risk of microbial resistance, and overall clinical relevance is needed.

Still, the “investigators should be applauded for taking advantage of a readily available systemic treatment to target cutaneous and extracutaneous symptoms of patients who have very limited treatment options at this time,” they wrote. While all forms of EB are considered orphan disorders, JEB and EBS-MD have received less research attention than RDEB.

The JEB study evaluated patients with clinical assessments/quality of life surveys and with a validated clinical score that considers skin and mucosae – the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI). There were small positive changes in EBDASI scores, but data were incomplete and therefore difficult to interpret.

A “noteworthy” finding, the authors wrote, were improvements in emotions and functioning in two of the children who were eligible given their older ages for assessment with the Skindex-16 quality-of-life survey. The improvements suggest “potential psychosocial benefits” of the gentamicin therapy.

The JEB study was supported in part by grants from the EB Research Partnership and EB Medical Research Foundation and an award from the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. In addition to the grants, Dr. Woodley and Dr. Chen reported receiving personal fees from Phoenix Tissue Repair outside of the submitted work. For the EBS-MD case report, the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Bruckner, corresponding author of the editorial, reported grants from several companies outside the submitted work.

Intravenous gentamicin therapy was associated with new laminin 332 – a major component of anchoring filaments in the dermal-epidermal junction – in the skin of five pediatric patients with intermediate or severe junctional epidermolysis bullosa (JEB) caused by nonsense variants.

The newly generated structural protein persisted during the 3-month randomized clinical trial and was associated with significant wound closure – with no signs of ototoxic effects, nephrotoxic effects, or anti–laminin 332 autoantibody induction, investigators recently reported in JAMA Dermatology.

JEB is a rare, autosomal recessive disorder caused mainly by nonsense variants (i.e., mutations) in the LAMA3, LAMB3, or LAMC2 genes that encode laminin, resulting in widespread blisters and erosions of the skin. Current treatment is limited to supportive management and palliative care, and children with its severe subtype are likely to die within the first year of life.

“With data indicating a robust response to short-term gentamicin treatment and the marked stability of laminin 332, we envision that gentamicin could be delivered as a short-term pulse therapy every 2-3 months for patients with JEB caused by nonsense variants,” the researchers wrote.

Of the five patients, ages 3 months to 10 years, three received 7.5 mg/kg IV gentamicin daily for 14 days, and two received 10 mg/kg daily for 24 days at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

All had confirmed nonsense variants in LAMA3 or LAMB3 in one or two alleles, and all had minimal laminin 332 expression at baseline as determined by immunofluorescence. After treatment, each of the children had increased, sustained expression of laminin 332.

The researchers monitored three open wounds in each patient. By 1 month, seven of nine wounds in those receiving the lower-dose therapy and all of the wounds in those receiving the higher-dose therapy showed at least 50% closure. By 3 months, eight of nine wounds in the lower-dose group, and all wounds in the higher-dose group showed greater than 85% closure.

In an interview, senior investigators Mei Chen, PhD, professor of dermatology, and David T. Woodley, MD, professor and chair of dermatology, both at USC, emphasized laminin’s long half-life.“Once these skin structural proteins are generated at the dermal-epidermal junction, they are long-lasting structures, which means the therapy can be pulsed rather than continuously delivered, which can obviate some of the known side effects of the medication,” Dr. Woodley said.

Gentamicin, an aminoglycoside, works as a “read-through therapy,” inducing ribosomal read-through of premature termination codons (PTCs) caused by nonsense mutations. The read-through allows translation to proceed and full-length proteins to be generated.

Gentamicin read-through therapy is also being investigated for recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) attributable to nonsense mutations. The culprit mutations in this form of EB occur in a gene that encodes collagen type VII alpha 1, which, like laminin, is responsible for dermal-epidermal adherence. A clinical trial of intravenous gentamicin for RDEB is ongoing at USC, Dr. Chen said.


 

EBS-MD case report

It may also have a role in treating epidermolysis bullosa simplex with muscular dystrophy (EBS-MD), according to investigators in Madrid. Their case report, published in JAMA Dermatology, details how two 14-day courses of infused gentamicin therapy were followed by re-expression of plectin in the skin for 4-5 months and mild improvement in symptoms in one patient, a woman in her 30s, with a homozygous nonsense variant in PLEC1.

In an editorial accompanying the two reports, Anna L. Bruckner, MD, MSCS, professor of dermatology, University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and colleagues expressed cautious optimism and said that additional research on the feasibility, possible cumulative toxic effects, risk of microbial resistance, and overall clinical relevance is needed.

Still, the “investigators should be applauded for taking advantage of a readily available systemic treatment to target cutaneous and extracutaneous symptoms of patients who have very limited treatment options at this time,” they wrote. While all forms of EB are considered orphan disorders, JEB and EBS-MD have received less research attention than RDEB.

The JEB study evaluated patients with clinical assessments/quality of life surveys and with a validated clinical score that considers skin and mucosae – the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI). There were small positive changes in EBDASI scores, but data were incomplete and therefore difficult to interpret.

A “noteworthy” finding, the authors wrote, were improvements in emotions and functioning in two of the children who were eligible given their older ages for assessment with the Skindex-16 quality-of-life survey. The improvements suggest “potential psychosocial benefits” of the gentamicin therapy.

The JEB study was supported in part by grants from the EB Research Partnership and EB Medical Research Foundation and an award from the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program. In addition to the grants, Dr. Woodley and Dr. Chen reported receiving personal fees from Phoenix Tissue Repair outside of the submitted work. For the EBS-MD case report, the authors reported no disclosures. Dr. Bruckner, corresponding author of the editorial, reported grants from several companies outside the submitted work.

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that became popular as an alternative treatment for COVID-19, showed no signs of quelling the disease or reducing patients’ risk of hospitalization, according to results from a large clinical trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The findings pretty much rule out the drug as a treatment for COVID-19, the study authors wrote.

“There’s really no sign of any benefit,” David Boulware, MD, one of the coauthors and an infectious disease specialist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

The researchers shared a summary of the results in August 2021 during an online presentation hosted by the National Institutes of Health. The full data hadn’t been published until now.

“Now that people can dive into the details and the data, hopefully that will steer the majority of doctors away from ivermectin toward other therapies,” Dr. Boulware said.

In the trial, the research team compared more than 1,350 people infected with the coronavirus in Brazil who received either ivermectin or a placebo as treatment.

Between March and August 2021, 679 patients received a daily dose of ivermectin over the course of 3 days. The researchers found that ivermectin didn’t reduce the risk that people with COVID-19 would be hospitalized or go to an ED within 28 days after treatment.

In addition, the researchers looked at particular groups to understand if some patients benefited for some reason, such as taking ivermectin sooner after testing positive for COVID-19. But those who took the drug during the first 3 days after a positive coronavirus test ended up doing worse than those in the placebo group. The drug also didn’t help patients recover sooner.

The researchers found “no important effects” of treatment with ivermectin on the number of days people spent in the hospital, the number of days hospitalized people needed mechanical ventilation, or the risk of death.

Ivermectin has become a controversial focal point during the pandemic.

For decades, the drug has been widely used to treat parasitic infections. At the beginning of the pandemic, researchers checked thousands of existing drugs against the coronavirus to determine if a potential treatment already existed. Laboratory experiments on cells suggested that ivermectin might work, the New York Times reported.

But some researchers noted that the experiments worked because a high concentration of ivermectin was used, a much higher dose than would be safe for people. Despite the concerns, some doctors began prescribing ivermectin to patients. After receiving reports of people who needed medical attention, particularly after using formulations intended for livestock, the Food and Drug Administration issued a warning that the drug wasn’t approved to be used for COVID-19.

Researchers around the world have done small clinical trials to understand whether ivermectin treats COVID-19, the newspaper reported. At the end of 2020, Andrew Hill, MD, a virologist at the University of Liverpool in England, reviewed the results from 23 trials and concluded that the drug could lower the risk of death from COVID-19. He published the results in July 2021, but later reports found that many of the studies were flawed, and at least one was fraudulent.

Dr. Hill retracted his original study and began another analysis, which was published in January 2022. In this review, he and his colleagues focused on studies that were least likely to be biased. They found that ivermectin was not helpful.

Recently, Dr. Hill and associates ran another analysis using the new data from the Brazil trial, and once again they saw no benefit.

Several clinical trials are still testing ivermectin as a treatment, the New York Times reported, with results expected in upcoming months. After reviewing the data from the Brazil trial, which tested ivermectin and a variety of other drugs against COVID-19, some infectious disease experts say they’ll likely see more of the same – that ivermectin doesn’t help people with COVID-19.

“I welcome the results of the other clinical trials and will view them with an open mind,” Paul Sax, MD, an infectious disease expert at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, who has been watching the data on the drug throughout the pandemic, told the New York Times.

“But at some point, it will become a waste of resources to continue studying an unpromising approach,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

What prophylactic antibiotic should be administered intrapartum to a pregnant woman who is colonized with group B streptococci but who has a mild allergy to penicillin?

Continue to the answer...

In this situation, the drug of choice is intravenous cefazolin, 2 g initially then 1 g every 8 hours until delivery. For patients with a severe allergy to penicillin, the drugs of choice are either clindamycin, 900 mg intravenously every 8 hours (if sensitivity of the organism is confirmed), or vancomycin, 20 mg/kg intravenously every 8 hours (maximum of 2 g per single dose).

What prophylactic antibiotic should be administered intrapartum to a pregnant woman who is colonized with group B streptococci but who has a mild allergy to penicillin?

Continue to the answer...

In this situation, the drug of choice is intravenous cefazolin, 2 g initially then 1 g every 8 hours until delivery. For patients with a severe allergy to penicillin, the drugs of choice are either clindamycin, 900 mg intravenously every 8 hours (if sensitivity of the organism is confirmed), or vancomycin, 20 mg/kg intravenously every 8 hours (maximum of 2 g per single dose).

What prophylactic antibiotic should be administered intrapartum to a pregnant woman who is colonized with group B streptococci but who has a mild allergy to penicillin?

Continue to the answer...

In this situation, the drug of choice is intravenous cefazolin, 2 g initially then 1 g every 8 hours until delivery. For patients with a severe allergy to penicillin, the drugs of choice are either clindamycin, 900 mg intravenously every 8 hours (if sensitivity of the organism is confirmed), or vancomycin, 20 mg/kg intravenously every 8 hours (maximum of 2 g per single dose).

BOSTON – For patients presenting with moderate to severe pemphigus, the choice of initial therapy has been distilled to a single agent: rituximab. This drug is more rapidly effective, more likely to provide sustained remission, better tolerated, and lowers health care costs, according to an expert summary at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

With rituximab “we are not only able to offer better efficacy, earlier and longer remissions, less side effects, less risk of relapse after a response, but it is actually cheaper,” reported Erin X. Wei, MD, director of the Bullous Diseases Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

There are many treatments that reduce the inflammatory component of pemphigus. Corticosteroids, doxycycline, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, and methotrexate are among those options commonly considered in the early control of this rare and potentially fatal autoimmune blistering disease of the skin, mouth, and other tissues.

Not all of these options have been compared directly in controlled trials, but Dr. Wei indicated that the preponderance of evidence is now on the side of rituximab as a first-line choice. For example, in the multicenter Ritux 3 trial, which compared a tapered regimen of prednisone alone to rituximab combined with a shorter and lower-dose prednisone taper in patients with pemphigus, complete response rates off therapy at 2 years were 89% in the rituximab group versus 34% in the group that received prednisone alone.

“This was quite a remarkable difference,” said Dr. Wei, who noted that remissions overall occurred faster in the rituximab group and were more durable once achieved.

No other treatment option has demonstrated this degree of relative benefit over corticosteroids, according to Dr. Wei. She said there is evidence that mycophenolate mofetil acts more rapidly, but it has not been shown to be superior for sustained complete response. Nor has azathioprine provided a clear advantage over steroids. There are no well-conducted comparisons of methotrexate and prednisone, according to Dr. Wei, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Corticosteroids, doxycycline, and immunomodulators have been characterized as mainstays of early treatment in pemphigus, but Dr. Wei argued that the evidence supports starting with the most effective therapy first. There are many advantages to suppressing disease activity “as soon as possible” after diagnosis.

Early control “is associated with a more sustained remission, lower overall steroid use, and better quality of life,” said Dr. Wei, listing the hazards of starting with less effective therapy, and explaining why she has moved to rituximab as a first-line choice. According to her, there are data to support these advantages.

“Several studies have observed that rituximab, within the first 6 months of disease onset, is associated with a higher rate of complete response and a longer duration of complete response,” Dr. Wei said.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy is effective in many patients but less reliable, and it has other disadvantages relative to rituximab as a first-line therapy.

“IVIG in pemphigus works quickly when it works, but it is more expensive and it is more of an ongoing therapy relative to rituximab,” said Dr. Wei, referring to the lower likelihood of IVIG to provide sustained remissions.

The price of rituximab is high relative to prednisone or other immunomodulators, but management costs are ultimately reduced because of better disease control, according to Dr. Wei. She cited a Canadian study published several years ago in which health care costs in the 6 months prior to rituximab were compared to costs over 6 months after it was initiated.

In this cohort of 89 patients with pemphigus or pemphigoid, the average cost per patient for 6 months of care prior to starting rituximab was $42,231 in Canadian dollars. After treatment was started, the cost fell to $29,423, a 30% reduction, over the next 6 months.

“It takes rituximab up to 3 months or sometimes even longer to achieve its greatest benefit, making these results even more impressive,” Dr. Wei said.

The activity of rituximab to suppress autoreactive B-cells can be monitored with antidesmoglein autoantibody levels and by measuring CD20-positive cell percentages. Unlike severity of disease at baseline, which Dr. Wei said is not a reliable predictor of relapse risk, these can guide steroid tapering.

“If the patient is not making new autoantibodies, then tapering steroids can be considered safe,” Dr. Wei said.

One small case series cited by Dr. Wei has suggested that rituximab might be effectively employed as a maintenance therapy for pemphigus. The maintenance treatment, which initially consisted of 1 g of rituximab every 6 months, was evaluated in 11 patients with a history of severe and frequent relapses.

In this group, rituximab was first employed to achieve a complete response. The maintenance was initiated when patients were in remission. In some patients, the maintenance dose interval was extended to once every 12 months over time. During a mean follow-up of 4 years, all 11 patients remained in complete remission.

“This was a remarkable result,” said Dr. Wei, who noted that there were no serious adverse events associated with rituximab maintenance over this period. This cannot be considered a routine strategy without a large patient experience, according to Dr. Wei, but it does provide another piece of evidence that rituximab is effective and well tolerated.

There are no guidelines from a major organization that establish an evidence-based treatment algorithm for pemphigus, but Dr. Wei is not alone in considering early initiation of the most effective therapy as the best approach to sustained control.

“I agree that rituximab is a good first-line option for pemphigus patients,” said Kara Heelan, MBBCh, MD, a consultant dermatologist at the Royal Marsden and Lister Hospital, London. She was the first author of the cost-effectiveness study that Dr. Wei cited. The study was published when she was an associate in the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto.

By calling rituximab “a good” option rather than a potential standard, Dr. Heelan appeared to be more circumspect than Dr. Wei about its central role in the care of pemphigus, but she did agree in an interview that this agent “has been shown to be cost-effective.” In her study, this was an advantage attributed to relative efficacy and safety that reduced use of health care resources.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – For patients presenting with moderate to severe pemphigus, the choice of initial therapy has been distilled to a single agent: rituximab. This drug is more rapidly effective, more likely to provide sustained remission, better tolerated, and lowers health care costs, according to an expert summary at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

With rituximab “we are not only able to offer better efficacy, earlier and longer remissions, less side effects, less risk of relapse after a response, but it is actually cheaper,” reported Erin X. Wei, MD, director of the Bullous Diseases Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

There are many treatments that reduce the inflammatory component of pemphigus. Corticosteroids, doxycycline, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, and methotrexate are among those options commonly considered in the early control of this rare and potentially fatal autoimmune blistering disease of the skin, mouth, and other tissues.

Not all of these options have been compared directly in controlled trials, but Dr. Wei indicated that the preponderance of evidence is now on the side of rituximab as a first-line choice. For example, in the multicenter Ritux 3 trial, which compared a tapered regimen of prednisone alone to rituximab combined with a shorter and lower-dose prednisone taper in patients with pemphigus, complete response rates off therapy at 2 years were 89% in the rituximab group versus 34% in the group that received prednisone alone.

“This was quite a remarkable difference,” said Dr. Wei, who noted that remissions overall occurred faster in the rituximab group and were more durable once achieved.

No other treatment option has demonstrated this degree of relative benefit over corticosteroids, according to Dr. Wei. She said there is evidence that mycophenolate mofetil acts more rapidly, but it has not been shown to be superior for sustained complete response. Nor has azathioprine provided a clear advantage over steroids. There are no well-conducted comparisons of methotrexate and prednisone, according to Dr. Wei, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Corticosteroids, doxycycline, and immunomodulators have been characterized as mainstays of early treatment in pemphigus, but Dr. Wei argued that the evidence supports starting with the most effective therapy first. There are many advantages to suppressing disease activity “as soon as possible” after diagnosis.

Early control “is associated with a more sustained remission, lower overall steroid use, and better quality of life,” said Dr. Wei, listing the hazards of starting with less effective therapy, and explaining why she has moved to rituximab as a first-line choice. According to her, there are data to support these advantages.

“Several studies have observed that rituximab, within the first 6 months of disease onset, is associated with a higher rate of complete response and a longer duration of complete response,” Dr. Wei said.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy is effective in many patients but less reliable, and it has other disadvantages relative to rituximab as a first-line therapy.

“IVIG in pemphigus works quickly when it works, but it is more expensive and it is more of an ongoing therapy relative to rituximab,” said Dr. Wei, referring to the lower likelihood of IVIG to provide sustained remissions.

The price of rituximab is high relative to prednisone or other immunomodulators, but management costs are ultimately reduced because of better disease control, according to Dr. Wei. She cited a Canadian study published several years ago in which health care costs in the 6 months prior to rituximab were compared to costs over 6 months after it was initiated.

In this cohort of 89 patients with pemphigus or pemphigoid, the average cost per patient for 6 months of care prior to starting rituximab was $42,231 in Canadian dollars. After treatment was started, the cost fell to $29,423, a 30% reduction, over the next 6 months.

“It takes rituximab up to 3 months or sometimes even longer to achieve its greatest benefit, making these results even more impressive,” Dr. Wei said.

The activity of rituximab to suppress autoreactive B-cells can be monitored with antidesmoglein autoantibody levels and by measuring CD20-positive cell percentages. Unlike severity of disease at baseline, which Dr. Wei said is not a reliable predictor of relapse risk, these can guide steroid tapering.

“If the patient is not making new autoantibodies, then tapering steroids can be considered safe,” Dr. Wei said.

One small case series cited by Dr. Wei has suggested that rituximab might be effectively employed as a maintenance therapy for pemphigus. The maintenance treatment, which initially consisted of 1 g of rituximab every 6 months, was evaluated in 11 patients with a history of severe and frequent relapses.

In this group, rituximab was first employed to achieve a complete response. The maintenance was initiated when patients were in remission. In some patients, the maintenance dose interval was extended to once every 12 months over time. During a mean follow-up of 4 years, all 11 patients remained in complete remission.

“This was a remarkable result,” said Dr. Wei, who noted that there were no serious adverse events associated with rituximab maintenance over this period. This cannot be considered a routine strategy without a large patient experience, according to Dr. Wei, but it does provide another piece of evidence that rituximab is effective and well tolerated.

There are no guidelines from a major organization that establish an evidence-based treatment algorithm for pemphigus, but Dr. Wei is not alone in considering early initiation of the most effective therapy as the best approach to sustained control.

“I agree that rituximab is a good first-line option for pemphigus patients,” said Kara Heelan, MBBCh, MD, a consultant dermatologist at the Royal Marsden and Lister Hospital, London. She was the first author of the cost-effectiveness study that Dr. Wei cited. The study was published when she was an associate in the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto.

By calling rituximab “a good” option rather than a potential standard, Dr. Heelan appeared to be more circumspect than Dr. Wei about its central role in the care of pemphigus, but she did agree in an interview that this agent “has been shown to be cost-effective.” In her study, this was an advantage attributed to relative efficacy and safety that reduced use of health care resources.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BOSTON – For patients presenting with moderate to severe pemphigus, the choice of initial therapy has been distilled to a single agent: rituximab. This drug is more rapidly effective, more likely to provide sustained remission, better tolerated, and lowers health care costs, according to an expert summary at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

With rituximab “we are not only able to offer better efficacy, earlier and longer remissions, less side effects, less risk of relapse after a response, but it is actually cheaper,” reported Erin X. Wei, MD, director of the Bullous Diseases Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

There are many treatments that reduce the inflammatory component of pemphigus. Corticosteroids, doxycycline, mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, and methotrexate are among those options commonly considered in the early control of this rare and potentially fatal autoimmune blistering disease of the skin, mouth, and other tissues.

Not all of these options have been compared directly in controlled trials, but Dr. Wei indicated that the preponderance of evidence is now on the side of rituximab as a first-line choice. For example, in the multicenter Ritux 3 trial, which compared a tapered regimen of prednisone alone to rituximab combined with a shorter and lower-dose prednisone taper in patients with pemphigus, complete response rates off therapy at 2 years were 89% in the rituximab group versus 34% in the group that received prednisone alone.

“This was quite a remarkable difference,” said Dr. Wei, who noted that remissions overall occurred faster in the rituximab group and were more durable once achieved.

No other treatment option has demonstrated this degree of relative benefit over corticosteroids, according to Dr. Wei. She said there is evidence that mycophenolate mofetil acts more rapidly, but it has not been shown to be superior for sustained complete response. Nor has azathioprine provided a clear advantage over steroids. There are no well-conducted comparisons of methotrexate and prednisone, according to Dr. Wei, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston.

Corticosteroids, doxycycline, and immunomodulators have been characterized as mainstays of early treatment in pemphigus, but Dr. Wei argued that the evidence supports starting with the most effective therapy first. There are many advantages to suppressing disease activity “as soon as possible” after diagnosis.

Early control “is associated with a more sustained remission, lower overall steroid use, and better quality of life,” said Dr. Wei, listing the hazards of starting with less effective therapy, and explaining why she has moved to rituximab as a first-line choice. According to her, there are data to support these advantages.

“Several studies have observed that rituximab, within the first 6 months of disease onset, is associated with a higher rate of complete response and a longer duration of complete response,” Dr. Wei said.

Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) therapy is effective in many patients but less reliable, and it has other disadvantages relative to rituximab as a first-line therapy.

“IVIG in pemphigus works quickly when it works, but it is more expensive and it is more of an ongoing therapy relative to rituximab,” said Dr. Wei, referring to the lower likelihood of IVIG to provide sustained remissions.

The price of rituximab is high relative to prednisone or other immunomodulators, but management costs are ultimately reduced because of better disease control, according to Dr. Wei. She cited a Canadian study published several years ago in which health care costs in the 6 months prior to rituximab were compared to costs over 6 months after it was initiated.

In this cohort of 89 patients with pemphigus or pemphigoid, the average cost per patient for 6 months of care prior to starting rituximab was $42,231 in Canadian dollars. After treatment was started, the cost fell to $29,423, a 30% reduction, over the next 6 months.

“It takes rituximab up to 3 months or sometimes even longer to achieve its greatest benefit, making these results even more impressive,” Dr. Wei said.

The activity of rituximab to suppress autoreactive B-cells can be monitored with antidesmoglein autoantibody levels and by measuring CD20-positive cell percentages. Unlike severity of disease at baseline, which Dr. Wei said is not a reliable predictor of relapse risk, these can guide steroid tapering.

“If the patient is not making new autoantibodies, then tapering steroids can be considered safe,” Dr. Wei said.

One small case series cited by Dr. Wei has suggested that rituximab might be effectively employed as a maintenance therapy for pemphigus. The maintenance treatment, which initially consisted of 1 g of rituximab every 6 months, was evaluated in 11 patients with a history of severe and frequent relapses.

In this group, rituximab was first employed to achieve a complete response. The maintenance was initiated when patients were in remission. In some patients, the maintenance dose interval was extended to once every 12 months over time. During a mean follow-up of 4 years, all 11 patients remained in complete remission.

“This was a remarkable result,” said Dr. Wei, who noted that there were no serious adverse events associated with rituximab maintenance over this period. This cannot be considered a routine strategy without a large patient experience, according to Dr. Wei, but it does provide another piece of evidence that rituximab is effective and well tolerated.

There are no guidelines from a major organization that establish an evidence-based treatment algorithm for pemphigus, but Dr. Wei is not alone in considering early initiation of the most effective therapy as the best approach to sustained control.

“I agree that rituximab is a good first-line option for pemphigus patients,” said Kara Heelan, MBBCh, MD, a consultant dermatologist at the Royal Marsden and Lister Hospital, London. She was the first author of the cost-effectiveness study that Dr. Wei cited. The study was published when she was an associate in the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto.

By calling rituximab “a good” option rather than a potential standard, Dr. Heelan appeared to be more circumspect than Dr. Wei about its central role in the care of pemphigus, but she did agree in an interview that this agent “has been shown to be cost-effective.” In her study, this was an advantage attributed to relative efficacy and safety that reduced use of health care resources.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treatment with the human monoclonal antibody guselkumab over 12 weeks was shown to be safe and more effective than placebo in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, according to phase 2 trial data

Conventional first-line therapies for Crohn’s disease (CD) often are not effective for maintaining clinical remission and are associated with significant toxicity concerns, wrote study investigator William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues. Guselkumab is a human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits the p19 subunit of interleukin 23, a cytokine that plays an important role in gut inflammation, the researchers wrote. Their report was published online Feb. 5 in Gastroenterology.

In the phase 2 GALAXI-1 study, Dr. Sandborn and colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of guselkumab in 309 patients with moderate to severe CD for at least 3 months. All patients previously had experienced either an inadequate response or intolerance to convention treatment or biologic agents.

Patients were randomly assigned to either placebo (n = 61); intravenous guselkumab at doses of 200 mg (n = 61), 600 mg (n = 63), or 1,200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8 (n = 61); or a reference arm comprising ustekinumab approximately 6 mg/kg IV at week 0 and subcutaneous 90 mg at week 8 (n = 63).

The study’s primary endpoint included the change from baseline to 12 weeks in the CD Activity Index score. The mean age of the population was 38.8 years and the mean duration of CD was 8.8 years.

There were patients in the primary efficacy analysis set who discontinued the study through week 12. At one point the study was paused to assess a serious adverse event of toxic hepatitis in a guselkumab-treated patient. Fifty-one patients were discontinued from the study because their induction treatment was paused during the adverse event evaluation; however, these patients were included in the safety analyses.

At the 12-week follow-up assessment, patients assigned to all doses of guselkumab experienced significantly greater reductions in the CD Activity Index from baseline when compared with placebo (least squares mean: 200 mg: –160.4; 600 mg: –138.9; and 1,200 mg: –144.9 vs. placebo: –36.2; all P < .05). In addition, a significantly greater proportion of patients in each guselkumab arm achieved clinical remission compared with the placebo group (CD Activity Index < 150; 57.4%, 55.6%, and 45.9% vs. 16.4%; all P < .05).

Among the patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to prior biologic therapy, 47.5% of those in the combined guselkumab arm and 10.0% in the placebo arm met the criteria for clinical remission at 12 weeks. In addition, 62.4% of patients in the combined guselkumab group and 20% in the placebo group within the prior biologic therapy subgroup achieved clinical response at week 12.

Of patients with inadequate response or intolerance to prior conventional therapy, approximately 60% treated with guselkumab at all doses vs. 22.6% of the placebo group had clinical remission by 12 weeks. Also within this subgroup, 70.2% of patients in the combined guselkumab arm and 29% in the placebo arm had clinical response.

Finally, among the 360 patients in the safety analysis set, the proportions of patients with at least one adverse event were similar across the treatment groups during the treatment period (60% for placebo; 45.7% for guselkumab combined; 50.7% for ustekinumab).

There was no observable relationship between the dose of guselkumab and the proportion of patients with adverse events. Infection rates were 21.4% in the placebo arm, 15.1% in the combined guselkumab group, and 12.7% in the ustekinumab arm. Approximately 3.7% of patients in the combined guselkumab arm, 5.7% of patients in the placebo arm, and 5.6% of patients in the ustekinumab arm experienced at least one serious adverse event.

Greater proportions of patients receiving guselkumab achieved clinical response, Patient Reported Outcomes–2 remission, clinical-biomarker response, and endoscopic response at week 12 vs. placebo. Efficacy of ustekinumab vs. placebo was demonstrated. Safety event rates were generally similar across treatment groups.

Limitations of the study included the small number of patients in the overall dataset and the relatively short treatment period of 12 weeks. The researchers noted that phase 3 studies of guselkumab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease are underway.

Several of the researchers reported conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. The study received funding from Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

Treatment with the human monoclonal antibody guselkumab over 12 weeks was shown to be safe and more effective than placebo in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, according to phase 2 trial data

Conventional first-line therapies for Crohn’s disease (CD) often are not effective for maintaining clinical remission and are associated with significant toxicity concerns, wrote study investigator William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues. Guselkumab is a human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits the p19 subunit of interleukin 23, a cytokine that plays an important role in gut inflammation, the researchers wrote. Their report was published online Feb. 5 in Gastroenterology.

In the phase 2 GALAXI-1 study, Dr. Sandborn and colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of guselkumab in 309 patients with moderate to severe CD for at least 3 months. All patients previously had experienced either an inadequate response or intolerance to convention treatment or biologic agents.

Patients were randomly assigned to either placebo (n = 61); intravenous guselkumab at doses of 200 mg (n = 61), 600 mg (n = 63), or 1,200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8 (n = 61); or a reference arm comprising ustekinumab approximately 6 mg/kg IV at week 0 and subcutaneous 90 mg at week 8 (n = 63).

The study’s primary endpoint included the change from baseline to 12 weeks in the CD Activity Index score. The mean age of the population was 38.8 years and the mean duration of CD was 8.8 years.

There were patients in the primary efficacy analysis set who discontinued the study through week 12. At one point the study was paused to assess a serious adverse event of toxic hepatitis in a guselkumab-treated patient. Fifty-one patients were discontinued from the study because their induction treatment was paused during the adverse event evaluation; however, these patients were included in the safety analyses.

At the 12-week follow-up assessment, patients assigned to all doses of guselkumab experienced significantly greater reductions in the CD Activity Index from baseline when compared with placebo (least squares mean: 200 mg: –160.4; 600 mg: –138.9; and 1,200 mg: –144.9 vs. placebo: –36.2; all P < .05). In addition, a significantly greater proportion of patients in each guselkumab arm achieved clinical remission compared with the placebo group (CD Activity Index < 150; 57.4%, 55.6%, and 45.9% vs. 16.4%; all P < .05).

Among the patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to prior biologic therapy, 47.5% of those in the combined guselkumab arm and 10.0% in the placebo arm met the criteria for clinical remission at 12 weeks. In addition, 62.4% of patients in the combined guselkumab group and 20% in the placebo group within the prior biologic therapy subgroup achieved clinical response at week 12.

Of patients with inadequate response or intolerance to prior conventional therapy, approximately 60% treated with guselkumab at all doses vs. 22.6% of the placebo group had clinical remission by 12 weeks. Also within this subgroup, 70.2% of patients in the combined guselkumab arm and 29% in the placebo arm had clinical response.

Finally, among the 360 patients in the safety analysis set, the proportions of patients with at least one adverse event were similar across the treatment groups during the treatment period (60% for placebo; 45.7% for guselkumab combined; 50.7% for ustekinumab).

There was no observable relationship between the dose of guselkumab and the proportion of patients with adverse events. Infection rates were 21.4% in the placebo arm, 15.1% in the combined guselkumab group, and 12.7% in the ustekinumab arm. Approximately 3.7% of patients in the combined guselkumab arm, 5.7% of patients in the placebo arm, and 5.6% of patients in the ustekinumab arm experienced at least one serious adverse event.

Greater proportions of patients receiving guselkumab achieved clinical response, Patient Reported Outcomes–2 remission, clinical-biomarker response, and endoscopic response at week 12 vs. placebo. Efficacy of ustekinumab vs. placebo was demonstrated. Safety event rates were generally similar across treatment groups.

Limitations of the study included the small number of patients in the overall dataset and the relatively short treatment period of 12 weeks. The researchers noted that phase 3 studies of guselkumab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease are underway.

Several of the researchers reported conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. The study received funding from Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

Treatment with the human monoclonal antibody guselkumab over 12 weeks was shown to be safe and more effective than placebo in patients with moderate to severe Crohn’s disease, according to phase 2 trial data

Conventional first-line therapies for Crohn’s disease (CD) often are not effective for maintaining clinical remission and are associated with significant toxicity concerns, wrote study investigator William J. Sandborn, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues. Guselkumab is a human monoclonal antibody that selectively inhibits the p19 subunit of interleukin 23, a cytokine that plays an important role in gut inflammation, the researchers wrote. Their report was published online Feb. 5 in Gastroenterology.

In the phase 2 GALAXI-1 study, Dr. Sandborn and colleagues evaluated the safety and efficacy of guselkumab in 309 patients with moderate to severe CD for at least 3 months. All patients previously had experienced either an inadequate response or intolerance to convention treatment or biologic agents.

Patients were randomly assigned to either placebo (n = 61); intravenous guselkumab at doses of 200 mg (n = 61), 600 mg (n = 63), or 1,200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8 (n = 61); or a reference arm comprising ustekinumab approximately 6 mg/kg IV at week 0 and subcutaneous 90 mg at week 8 (n = 63).

The study’s primary endpoint included the change from baseline to 12 weeks in the CD Activity Index score. The mean age of the population was 38.8 years and the mean duration of CD was 8.8 years.

There were patients in the primary efficacy analysis set who discontinued the study through week 12. At one point the study was paused to assess a serious adverse event of toxic hepatitis in a guselkumab-treated patient. Fifty-one patients were discontinued from the study because their induction treatment was paused during the adverse event evaluation; however, these patients were included in the safety analyses.

At the 12-week follow-up assessment, patients assigned to all doses of guselkumab experienced significantly greater reductions in the CD Activity Index from baseline when compared with placebo (least squares mean: 200 mg: –160.4; 600 mg: –138.9; and 1,200 mg: –144.9 vs. placebo: –36.2; all P < .05). In addition, a significantly greater proportion of patients in each guselkumab arm achieved clinical remission compared with the placebo group (CD Activity Index < 150; 57.4%, 55.6%, and 45.9% vs. 16.4%; all P < .05).

Among the patients who had an inadequate response or intolerance to prior biologic therapy, 47.5% of those in the combined guselkumab arm and 10.0% in the placebo arm met the criteria for clinical remission at 12 weeks. In addition, 62.4% of patients in the combined guselkumab group and 20% in the placebo group within the prior biologic therapy subgroup achieved clinical response at week 12.

Of patients with inadequate response or intolerance to prior conventional therapy, approximately 60% treated with guselkumab at all doses vs. 22.6% of the placebo group had clinical remission by 12 weeks. Also within this subgroup, 70.2% of patients in the combined guselkumab arm and 29% in the placebo arm had clinical response.

Finally, among the 360 patients in the safety analysis set, the proportions of patients with at least one adverse event were similar across the treatment groups during the treatment period (60% for placebo; 45.7% for guselkumab combined; 50.7% for ustekinumab).

There was no observable relationship between the dose of guselkumab and the proportion of patients with adverse events. Infection rates were 21.4% in the placebo arm, 15.1% in the combined guselkumab group, and 12.7% in the ustekinumab arm. Approximately 3.7% of patients in the combined guselkumab arm, 5.7% of patients in the placebo arm, and 5.6% of patients in the ustekinumab arm experienced at least one serious adverse event.

Greater proportions of patients receiving guselkumab achieved clinical response, Patient Reported Outcomes–2 remission, clinical-biomarker response, and endoscopic response at week 12 vs. placebo. Efficacy of ustekinumab vs. placebo was demonstrated. Safety event rates were generally similar across treatment groups.

Limitations of the study included the small number of patients in the overall dataset and the relatively short treatment period of 12 weeks. The researchers noted that phase 3 studies of guselkumab for the treatment of Crohn’s disease are underway.

Several of the researchers reported conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. The study received funding from Janssen Research & Development, LLC.

A cross-sectional study in the United Kingdom has revealed an association between social media use and lower life satisfaction among children and adolescents aged 10-21 years.

“[Our] study provides evidence for age- and sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media use in adolescence,” lead author Amy Orben, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues wrote. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The researchers analyzed cross-sectional and longitudinal data from the Understanding Society dataset and the Millennium Cohort Study. The cross-sectional data was used to investigate the existence of developmental windows of sensitivity to social media, while the longitudinal data was used to evaluate whether sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media were present during the adolescence period.

These two datasets comprised 84,011 participants aged 10-80 years old. After applying the modeling framework, 17,409 participants aged 10-21 years were included in the analysis.

Longitudinal analyses revealed different developmental windows of sensitivity to social media during adolescence, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction scores 1 year later (regression coefficient [beta], −0.02; 95% confidence interval, −0.03 to −0.01; P = .004).

Among females, the researchers observed a window of sensitivity to social media between the ages of 11 and 13, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction ratings 1 year later (age 11: beta, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.21 to −0.02; P = .020; age 12: beta, −0.14; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.07; P < .001; age 13: beta, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.15 to −0.01; P = .019).

Among males, a similar window was observed between the ages of 14 and 15 (age 14: beta, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.03; P = .005; age 15: beta, –0.18; 95% CI, −0.29 to −0.08; P = .001).

Furthermore, they showed that a later increase in sensitivity to social media, which was present at age 19 for both females and males, suggested a different underlying process was present in late adolescence (females: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.25 to −0.07; P < .001; males: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.07; P = .001).

“Speculatively, this might be related to changes in the social environment such as a move away from home and subsequent disruptions in social networks,” the researchers wrote.

Importantly, Dr. Orben and colleagues noted that these results should be interpreted with caution. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of the data, causality cannot be inferred from these findings.

“The findings reported here may enable investigation of potential mechanisms of interest, for example, in datasets with pubertal or additional social measurements,” they wrote. “One could also carry out more targeted investigations, for example, by examining the mental health measures only completed by select age ranges in the datasets.”
 

Digital literacy is important, expert says

“Digital literacy and education about social media use is warranted for all ages, starting young,” Yalda T. Uhls, MBA, PhD, of the department of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Attending to underlying issues for vulnerable ages, such as anxiety, as well as parental support is critical.”

“I would urge social media platforms to pay attention to what kinds of content they are making available to ensure the highest possible quality, and to embed things like suggestions for pauses and other ways to check in on someone who may be experiencing distress when on socials,” Dr. Uhls said. “We also need to increase access to mental health resources for young people and social media could help provide information for those experiencing issues.”

This study was supported by the University of Cambridge and the UK Medical Research Council. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Uhls had no relevant disclosures.

A cross-sectional study in the United Kingdom has revealed an association between social media use and lower life satisfaction among children and adolescents aged 10-21 years.

“[Our] study provides evidence for age- and sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media use in adolescence,” lead author Amy Orben, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues wrote. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The researchers analyzed cross-sectional and longitudinal data from the Understanding Society dataset and the Millennium Cohort Study. The cross-sectional data was used to investigate the existence of developmental windows of sensitivity to social media, while the longitudinal data was used to evaluate whether sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media were present during the adolescence period.

These two datasets comprised 84,011 participants aged 10-80 years old. After applying the modeling framework, 17,409 participants aged 10-21 years were included in the analysis.

Longitudinal analyses revealed different developmental windows of sensitivity to social media during adolescence, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction scores 1 year later (regression coefficient [beta], −0.02; 95% confidence interval, −0.03 to −0.01; P = .004).

Among females, the researchers observed a window of sensitivity to social media between the ages of 11 and 13, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction ratings 1 year later (age 11: beta, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.21 to −0.02; P = .020; age 12: beta, −0.14; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.07; P < .001; age 13: beta, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.15 to −0.01; P = .019).

Among males, a similar window was observed between the ages of 14 and 15 (age 14: beta, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.03; P = .005; age 15: beta, –0.18; 95% CI, −0.29 to −0.08; P = .001).

Furthermore, they showed that a later increase in sensitivity to social media, which was present at age 19 for both females and males, suggested a different underlying process was present in late adolescence (females: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.25 to −0.07; P < .001; males: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.07; P = .001).

“Speculatively, this might be related to changes in the social environment such as a move away from home and subsequent disruptions in social networks,” the researchers wrote.

Importantly, Dr. Orben and colleagues noted that these results should be interpreted with caution. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of the data, causality cannot be inferred from these findings.

“The findings reported here may enable investigation of potential mechanisms of interest, for example, in datasets with pubertal or additional social measurements,” they wrote. “One could also carry out more targeted investigations, for example, by examining the mental health measures only completed by select age ranges in the datasets.”
 

Digital literacy is important, expert says

“Digital literacy and education about social media use is warranted for all ages, starting young,” Yalda T. Uhls, MBA, PhD, of the department of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Attending to underlying issues for vulnerable ages, such as anxiety, as well as parental support is critical.”

“I would urge social media platforms to pay attention to what kinds of content they are making available to ensure the highest possible quality, and to embed things like suggestions for pauses and other ways to check in on someone who may be experiencing distress when on socials,” Dr. Uhls said. “We also need to increase access to mental health resources for young people and social media could help provide information for those experiencing issues.”

This study was supported by the University of Cambridge and the UK Medical Research Council. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Uhls had no relevant disclosures.

A cross-sectional study in the United Kingdom has revealed an association between social media use and lower life satisfaction among children and adolescents aged 10-21 years.

“[Our] study provides evidence for age- and sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media use in adolescence,” lead author Amy Orben, PhD, of the University of Cambridge (England), and colleagues wrote. The findings were published in Nature Communications.

The researchers analyzed cross-sectional and longitudinal data from the Understanding Society dataset and the Millennium Cohort Study. The cross-sectional data was used to investigate the existence of developmental windows of sensitivity to social media, while the longitudinal data was used to evaluate whether sex-specific windows of sensitivity to social media were present during the adolescence period.

These two datasets comprised 84,011 participants aged 10-80 years old. After applying the modeling framework, 17,409 participants aged 10-21 years were included in the analysis.

Longitudinal analyses revealed different developmental windows of sensitivity to social media during adolescence, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction scores 1 year later (regression coefficient [beta], −0.02; 95% confidence interval, −0.03 to −0.01; P = .004).

Among females, the researchers observed a window of sensitivity to social media between the ages of 11 and 13, with higher estimated social media use predicting lower life satisfaction ratings 1 year later (age 11: beta, −0.11; 95% CI, −0.21 to −0.02; P = .020; age 12: beta, −0.14; 95% CI, −0.22 to −0.07; P < .001; age 13: beta, −0.08; 95% CI, −0.15 to −0.01; P = .019).

Among males, a similar window was observed between the ages of 14 and 15 (age 14: beta, −0.10; 95% CI, −0.17 to −0.03; P = .005; age 15: beta, –0.18; 95% CI, −0.29 to −0.08; P = .001).

Furthermore, they showed that a later increase in sensitivity to social media, which was present at age 19 for both females and males, suggested a different underlying process was present in late adolescence (females: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.25 to −0.07; P < .001; males: beta, −0.16; 95% CI, −0.26 to −0.07; P = .001).

“Speculatively, this might be related to changes in the social environment such as a move away from home and subsequent disruptions in social networks,” the researchers wrote.

Importantly, Dr. Orben and colleagues noted that these results should be interpreted with caution. Owing to the cross-sectional nature of the data, causality cannot be inferred from these findings.

“The findings reported here may enable investigation of potential mechanisms of interest, for example, in datasets with pubertal or additional social measurements,” they wrote. “One could also carry out more targeted investigations, for example, by examining the mental health measures only completed by select age ranges in the datasets.”
 

Digital literacy is important, expert says

“Digital literacy and education about social media use is warranted for all ages, starting young,” Yalda T. Uhls, MBA, PhD, of the department of psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles, said in an interview. “Attending to underlying issues for vulnerable ages, such as anxiety, as well as parental support is critical.”

“I would urge social media platforms to pay attention to what kinds of content they are making available to ensure the highest possible quality, and to embed things like suggestions for pauses and other ways to check in on someone who may be experiencing distress when on socials,” Dr. Uhls said. “We also need to increase access to mental health resources for young people and social media could help provide information for those experiencing issues.”

This study was supported by the University of Cambridge and the UK Medical Research Council. The authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Uhls had no relevant disclosures.

Ms. P, a 63-year-old woman with a history of schizophrenia whose symptoms have been stable on haloperidol 10 mg/d and ziprasidone 40 mg twice daily, presents to the outpatient clinic for a medication review. She mentions that she has noticed problems with her “memory.” She says she has had difficulty remembering names of people and places as well as difficulty concentrating while reading and writing, which she did months ago with ease. A Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is conducted, and Ms. P scores 13/30, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Visuospatial tasks and clock drawing are intact, but she exhibits impairments in working memory, attention, and concentration. One year ago, Ms. P’s MoCA score was 27/30. She agrees to a neurologic assessment and is referred to neurology for work-up.

Ms. P’s physical examination and routine laboratory tests are all within normal limits. The neurologic exam reveals deficits in working memory, concentration, and attention, but is otherwise unremarkable. MRI reveals mild chronic microvascular changes. The neurology service does not rule out cognitive impairment but recommends adjusting the dosage of Ms. P’s psychiatric medications to elucidate if her impairment of memory and attention is due to medications. However, Ms. P had been managed on her current regimen for several years and had not been hospitalized in many years. Previous attempts to taper her antipsychotics had resulted in worsening symptoms. Ms. P is reluctant to attempt a taper of her antipsychotics because she fears decompensation of her chronic illness. The treating team reviews Ms. P’s medication regimen, and notes that she is receiving benztropine 1 mg twice daily for prophylaxis of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Ms. P denies past or present symptoms of drug-induced parkinsonism, dystonia, or akathisia as well as constipation, sialorrhea, blurry vision, palpitations, or urinary retention.

Benztropine is a tropane alkaloid that was synthetized by combining the tropine portion of atropine with the benzhydryl portion of diphenhydramine hydrochloride. It has anticholinergic and antihistaminic properties¹ and seems to inhibit the dopamine transporter. Benztropine is indicated for all forms of parkinsonism, including antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism, but is also prescribed for many off-label uses, including sialorrhea and akathisia (although many authors do not recommend anticholinergics for this purpose^2,3), and for prophylaxis of EPS. Benztropine can be administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or orally. Given orally, the typical dosing is twice daily with a maximum dose of 6 mg/d. Benztropine is preferred over diphenhydramine and trihexyphenidyl due to adverse effects of sedation or potential for misuse of the medication.¹

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) have been associated with lower rates of neurologic adverse effects compared with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). Because SGAs are increasingly prescribed, the use of benztropine (along with other agents such as trihexyphenidyl) for EPS prophylaxis is not an evidence-based practice. However, despite a movement away from prophylactic management of movement disorders, benztropine continues to be prescribed for EPS and/or cholinergic symptoms, despite the peripheral and cognitive adverse effects of this agent and, in many instances, the lack of clear indication for its use.

According to the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia,⁴ anticholinergics should only be used for preventing acute dystonia in conjunction with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic. Furthermore, the APA Guideline states anticholinergics may be used for drug-induced parkinsonism when the dose of an antipsychotic cannot be reduced and an alternative agent is required. However, the first-line agent for drug-induced parkinsonism is amantadine, and benztropine should only be considered if amantadine is contraindicated.⁴ The rationale for this guideline and for judicious use of anticholinergics is that like any pharmacologic treatment, anticholinergics (including benztropine) carry the potential for adverse effects. For benztropine, these range from mild effects such as tachycardia and constipation to paralytic ileus, increased falls, worsening of tardive dyskinesia (TD), and potential cognitive impairment. Literature suggests that the first step in managing cognitive concerns in a patient with schizophrenia should be a close review of medications, and avoidance of agents with anticholinergic properties.⁵

Prescribing benztropine for EPS

EPS, which include dystonia, akathisia, drug-induced parkinsonism, and TD, are very frequent adverse effects noted with antipsychotics. Benztropine has demonstrated benefit in managing acute dystonia and the APA Guideline recommends IM administration of either benztropine 1 mg or diphenhydramine 25 mg for this purpose.⁴ However, in our experience, the most frequent indication for long-term prescribing of benztropine is prophylaxis of antipsychoticinduced dystonia. This use was suggested by some older studies. In a 1987 study by Boyer et al,⁶ patients who were administered benztropine with haloperidol did not develop acute dystonia, while patients who received haloperidol alone developed dystonia. However, this was a small retrospective study with methodological issues. Boyer et al⁶ suggested discontinuing prophylaxis with benztropine within 1 week, as acute dystonia occurred within 2.5 days. Other researchers^7,8 have argued that short-term prophylaxis with benztropine for 1 week may work, especially during treatment with high-potency antipsychotics. However, in a review of the use of anticholinergics in conjunction with antipsychotics, Desmarais et al⁵ concluded that there is no need for prophylaxis and recommended alternative treatments. As we have noticed in Ms. P and other patients treated in our facilities, benztropine is frequently continued indefinitely without a clinical indication for its continuous use. Assessment and indication for continued use of benztropine should be considered regularly, and it should be discontinued when there is no clear indication for its use or when adverse effects emerge.

Prescribing benztropine for TD

TD is a subtype of tardive syndromes associated with the use of antipsychotics. It is characterized by repetitive involuntary movements such as lip smacking, puckering, chewing, or tongue protrusion. Proposed pathophysiological mechanisms include dopamine receptor hypersensitivity, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor excitotoxicity, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-containing neuron activity.

According to the APA Guideline, evidence of benztropine’s efficacy for the prevention of TD is lacking.⁴ A 2018 Cochrane systematic review⁹ was unable to provide a definitive conclusion regarding the effectiveness of benztropine and other anticholinergics for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced TD. While many clinicians believe that benztropine can be used to treat all types of EPS, there are no clear instances in reviewed literature where the efficacy of benztropine for treating TD could be reliably demonstrated. Furthermore, some literature suggests that anticholinergics such as benztropine increase the risk of developing TD.^5,10 The mechanism underlying benztropine’s ability to precipitate or exacerbate abnormal movements is unclear, though it is theorized that anticholinergic medications may inhibit dopamine reuptake into neurons, thus leading to an excess of dopamine in the synaptic cleft that manifests as dyskinesias.¹⁰ Some authors also recommend that the first step in the management of TD should be to gradually discontinue anticholinergics, as this has been associated with improvement in TD.¹¹

Continue to: Prescribing anticholinergics in specific patient populations...

 

 

Prescribing anticholinergics in specific patient populations

In addition to the adverse effects described above, benztropine can affect cognition, as we observed in Ms. P. The cholinergic system plays a role in human cognition, and blockade of muscarinic receptors has been associated with impairments in working memory and prefrontal tasks.¹² These adverse cognitive effects are more pronounced in certain populations, including patients with schizophrenia and older adults.

Schizophrenia is associated with declining cognitive function, and the cognitive faculties of patients with schizophrenia may be worsened by anticholinergics. In patients with schizophrenia, social interactions and social integration are often impacted by profound negative symptoms such as social withdrawal and poverty of thought and speech.¹³ In a double-blind study by Baker et al,¹⁴ benztropine was found to have an impact on attention and concentration in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Baker et al¹⁴ found that patients with schizophrenia who were switched from benztropine to placebo increased their overall Wechsler Memory Scale scores compared to those maintained on benztropine. One crosssectional analysis found that a higher anticholinergic burden was associated with impairments across all cognitive domains, including memory, attention/control, executive and visuospatial functioning, and motor speed domains.¹⁵ Importantly, a higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance.¹⁵ In addition to impairments in cognitive processing, anticholinergics have been associated with a decreased ability to benefit from psychosocial programs and impaired abilities to manage activities of daily living.⁴ In another study exploring the effects of discontinuing anticholinergics and the impact on movement disorders, Desmarais et al¹⁶ found patients experienced a significant improvement in scores on the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia after discontinuing anticholinergics. Vinogradov et al¹⁷ noted that “serum anticholinergic activity in schizophrenia patients shows a significant association with impaired performance in measures of verbal working memory and verbal learning memory and was significantly associated with a lowered response to an intensive course of computerized cognitive training.” They felt their findings underscored the cognitive cost of medications with high anticholinergic burden.

Geriatric patients. Careful consideration should be given before starting benztropine in patients age ≥65. The 2019 American Geriatric Society’s Beers Criteria¹⁸ recommend avoiding benztropine in geriatric patients; the level of recommendation is strong. Furthermore, the American Geriatric Society designates benztropine as a medication that should be avoided, and a nondrug approach or alternative medication be prescribed independent of the patient’s condition or diagnosis. In a recently published case report, Esang et al¹⁹ highlighted several salient findings from previous studies on the risks associated with anticholinergic use:

• any medications a patient takes with anticholinergic properties contribute to the overall anticholinergic load of a patient’s medication regimen
• the higher the anticholinergic burden, the greater the cognitive deficits
• switching from an FGA to an SGA may decrease the risk of EPS and may limit the need for anticholinergic medications such as benztropine for a particular patient.

One must also consider that the effects of multiple medications with anticholinergic properties is probably cumulative.

Alternatives for treating drug-induced parkinsonism

Antipsychotics exert their effects through antagonism of the D2 receptor, and this is the same mechanism that leads to parkinsonism. Specifically, the mechanism is believed to be D2 receptor antagonism in the striatum leading to disinhibition of striatal neurons containing GABA.¹¹ This disinhibition of medium spiny neurons is propagated when acetylcholine is released from cholinergic interneurons. Anticholinergics such as benztropine can remedy symptoms by blocking the signal of acetylcholine on the M1 receptors on medium spiny neurons. However, benztropine also has the propensity to decrease cholinergic transmission, thereby impairing storage of new information into long-term memory as well as impair perception of time—similar to effects seen with (for instance) diphenhydramine.²⁰

The first step in managing drug-induced parkinsonism is to monitor symptoms. The APA Guideline recommends monitoring for acute-onset EPS at weekly intervals when beginning treatment and until stable for 2 weeks, and then monitoring at every follow-up visit thereafter.⁴ The next recommendation for long-term management of drug-induced parkinsonism is reducing the antipsychotic dose, or replacing the patient’s antipsychotic with an antipsychotic that is less likely to precipitate parkinsonism,4 such as quetiapine, iloperidone, or clozapine.¹¹ If dose reduction is not possible, and the patient’s symptoms are severe, pharmacologic management is indicated. The APA Guideline recommends amantadine as a first-line agent because it is associated with fewer peripheral adverse effects and less impairment in cognition compared with benztropine.⁴ In a small (N = 60) doubleblind crossover trial, Gelenberg et al²⁰ found benztropine 4 mg/d—but not amantadine 200 mg/d—impaired free recall and perception of time, and participants’ perception of their own memory impairment was significantly greater with benztropine. Amantadine has also been compared to biperiden, a relatively selective M1 muscarinic receptor muscarinic agent. In a separate double-blind crossover study of 26 patients with chronic schizophrenia, Silver and Geraisy²¹ found that compared to amantadine, biperiden was associated with worse memory performance. The recommended starting dose of amantadine for parkinsonism is 100 mg in the morning, increased to 100 mg twice a day and titrated to a maximum daily dose of 300 mg/d in divided doses.⁴

Continue to: Alternatives for treating drug-induced akathisia...

 

 

Alternatives for treating drug-induced akathisia

Akathisia remains a relatively common adverse effect of SGAs, and the profound physical distress and impaired functioning caused by akathisia necessitates pharmacologic treatment. Despite frequent use in practice for presumed benefit in akathisia, benztropine is not effective for the treatment of akathisia and the APA Guideline recommends that long-term management should begin with an antipsychotic dose reduction, followed by a switch to an agent with less propensity to incite akathisia.⁴ Acute manifestations of akathisia must be treated, and mirtazapine, propranolol, or clonazepam may be considered as alternatives.⁴ Mirtazapine is dosed 7.5 mg to 10 mg nightly for akathisia, though it should be used in caution in patients at risk for mania.⁴ Mirtazapine’s potent 5-HT2A blockade at low doses may contribute to its utility in treating akathisia.² Propranolol, a nonselective lipophilic beta-adrenergic antagonist, also has demonstrated efficacy in managing akathisia, with recommended dosing of 40 mg to 80 mg twice daily.² Benzodiazepines such as clonazepam require judicious use for akathisia because they may also precipitate or exacerbate cognitive impairment.⁴

Alternatives for treating TD

As mentioned above, benztropine is not recommended for the treatment of TD.¹ The Box^4,22,23 outlines potential treatment options for TD.

Box

Discontinuing benztropine

Benztropine is recommended as a firstline agent for the management of acute dystonia, and it may be used temporarily for drug-induced parkinsonism, but it is not recommended to prevent EPS or TD. Given the multitude of adverse effects and cognitive impairment noted with anticholinergics, tapering should be considered for patients receiving an anticholinergic agent such as benztropine. Based on their review of earlier studies, Desmarais et al⁵ suggest a gradual 3-month discontinuation of benztropine. Multiple studies have demonstrated an ability to taper anticholinergics in days to months.⁴ However, gradual discontinuation is advisable to avoid cholinergic rebound and the reemergence of EPS, and to decrease the risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with sudden discontinuation.⁵ One suggested taper regimen is a decrease of 0.5 mg benztropine every week. Amantadine may be considered if parkinsonism is noted during the taper. Patients on benztropine may develop rebound symptoms, such as vivid dreams/nightmares; if this occurs, the taper rate can be slowed to a decrease of 0.5 mg every 2 weeks.⁴

Continue to: First do no harm...

 

 

First do no harm

Psychiatrists commonly prescribe benztropine to prevent EPS and TD, but available literature does not support the efficacy of benztropine for mitigating drug-induced parkinsonism, and studies report benztropine may significantly worsen cognitive processes and exacerbate TD.¹⁶ In addition, benztropine misuse has been correlated with euphoria and psychosis.¹⁶ More than 3 decades ago, the World Health Organization Heads of Centres Collaborating in WHO-Coordinated Studies on Biological Aspects of Mental Illness issued a consensus statement²⁴ discouraging the prophylactic use of anticholinergics for patients receiving antipsychotics, yet we still see patients on an indefinite regimen of benztropine.

As clinicians, our goals should be to optimize a patient’s functioning and quality of life, and to use the lowest dose of medication along with the fewest medications necessary to avoid adverse effects such as EPS. Benztropine is recommended as a first-line agent for the management of acute dystonia, but its continued or indefinite use to prevent antipsychotic-induced adverse effects is not recommended. While all pharmacologic interventions carry a risk of adverse effects, weighing the risk of those effects against the clinical benefits is the prerogative of a skilled clinician. Benztropine and other anticholinergics prescribed for prophylactic purposes have numerous adverse effects, limited clinical utility, and a deleterious effect on quality of life. Furthermore, benztropine prophylaxis of drug-induced parkinsonism does not seem to be warranted, and the risks do not seem to outweigh the harm benztropine may cause, with the possible exception of “prophylactic” treatment of dystonia that is discontinued in a few days, as some researchers have suggested.^6-8 The preventive value of benztropine has not been demonstrated. It is time we took inventory of medications that might cause more harm than good, rely on current treatment guidelines instead of habit, and use these agents judiciously while considering replacement with novel, safer medications whenever possible.

CASE CONTINUED

The clinical team considers benztropine’s ability to cause cognitive effects, and decides to taper and discontinue it over 1 month. Ms. P is seen in an outpatient clinic within 1 month of discontinuing benztropine. She reports that her difficulty remembering words and details has improved. She also says that she is now able to concentrate on writing and reading. The consulting neurologist also notes improvement. Ms. P continues to report improvement in symptoms over the next 2 months of follow-up, and says that her mood improved and she has less apathy.

Bottom Line

Benztropine is a first-line medication for acute dystonia, but its continued or indefinite use for preventing antipsychotic-induced adverse effects is not recommended. Given the multitude of adverse effects and cognitive impairment noted with anticholinergics, tapering should be considered for patients receiving an anticholinergic medication such as benztropine.

Ms. P, a 63-year-old woman with a history of schizophrenia whose symptoms have been stable on haloperidol 10 mg/d and ziprasidone 40 mg twice daily, presents to the outpatient clinic for a medication review. She mentions that she has noticed problems with her “memory.” She says she has had difficulty remembering names of people and places as well as difficulty concentrating while reading and writing, which she did months ago with ease. A Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is conducted, and Ms. P scores 13/30, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Visuospatial tasks and clock drawing are intact, but she exhibits impairments in working memory, attention, and concentration. One year ago, Ms. P’s MoCA score was 27/30. She agrees to a neurologic assessment and is referred to neurology for work-up.

Ms. P’s physical examination and routine laboratory tests are all within normal limits. The neurologic exam reveals deficits in working memory, concentration, and attention, but is otherwise unremarkable. MRI reveals mild chronic microvascular changes. The neurology service does not rule out cognitive impairment but recommends adjusting the dosage of Ms. P’s psychiatric medications to elucidate if her impairment of memory and attention is due to medications. However, Ms. P had been managed on her current regimen for several years and had not been hospitalized in many years. Previous attempts to taper her antipsychotics had resulted in worsening symptoms. Ms. P is reluctant to attempt a taper of her antipsychotics because she fears decompensation of her chronic illness. The treating team reviews Ms. P’s medication regimen, and notes that she is receiving benztropine 1 mg twice daily for prophylaxis of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Ms. P denies past or present symptoms of drug-induced parkinsonism, dystonia, or akathisia as well as constipation, sialorrhea, blurry vision, palpitations, or urinary retention.

Benztropine is a tropane alkaloid that was synthetized by combining the tropine portion of atropine with the benzhydryl portion of diphenhydramine hydrochloride. It has anticholinergic and antihistaminic properties¹ and seems to inhibit the dopamine transporter. Benztropine is indicated for all forms of parkinsonism, including antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism, but is also prescribed for many off-label uses, including sialorrhea and akathisia (although many authors do not recommend anticholinergics for this purpose^2,3), and for prophylaxis of EPS. Benztropine can be administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or orally. Given orally, the typical dosing is twice daily with a maximum dose of 6 mg/d. Benztropine is preferred over diphenhydramine and trihexyphenidyl due to adverse effects of sedation or potential for misuse of the medication.¹

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) have been associated with lower rates of neurologic adverse effects compared with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). Because SGAs are increasingly prescribed, the use of benztropine (along with other agents such as trihexyphenidyl) for EPS prophylaxis is not an evidence-based practice. However, despite a movement away from prophylactic management of movement disorders, benztropine continues to be prescribed for EPS and/or cholinergic symptoms, despite the peripheral and cognitive adverse effects of this agent and, in many instances, the lack of clear indication for its use.

According to the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia,⁴ anticholinergics should only be used for preventing acute dystonia in conjunction with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic. Furthermore, the APA Guideline states anticholinergics may be used for drug-induced parkinsonism when the dose of an antipsychotic cannot be reduced and an alternative agent is required. However, the first-line agent for drug-induced parkinsonism is amantadine, and benztropine should only be considered if amantadine is contraindicated.⁴ The rationale for this guideline and for judicious use of anticholinergics is that like any pharmacologic treatment, anticholinergics (including benztropine) carry the potential for adverse effects. For benztropine, these range from mild effects such as tachycardia and constipation to paralytic ileus, increased falls, worsening of tardive dyskinesia (TD), and potential cognitive impairment. Literature suggests that the first step in managing cognitive concerns in a patient with schizophrenia should be a close review of medications, and avoidance of agents with anticholinergic properties.⁵

Prescribing benztropine for EPS

EPS, which include dystonia, akathisia, drug-induced parkinsonism, and TD, are very frequent adverse effects noted with antipsychotics. Benztropine has demonstrated benefit in managing acute dystonia and the APA Guideline recommends IM administration of either benztropine 1 mg or diphenhydramine 25 mg for this purpose.⁴ However, in our experience, the most frequent indication for long-term prescribing of benztropine is prophylaxis of antipsychoticinduced dystonia. This use was suggested by some older studies. In a 1987 study by Boyer et al,⁶ patients who were administered benztropine with haloperidol did not develop acute dystonia, while patients who received haloperidol alone developed dystonia. However, this was a small retrospective study with methodological issues. Boyer et al⁶ suggested discontinuing prophylaxis with benztropine within 1 week, as acute dystonia occurred within 2.5 days. Other researchers^7,8 have argued that short-term prophylaxis with benztropine for 1 week may work, especially during treatment with high-potency antipsychotics. However, in a review of the use of anticholinergics in conjunction with antipsychotics, Desmarais et al⁵ concluded that there is no need for prophylaxis and recommended alternative treatments. As we have noticed in Ms. P and other patients treated in our facilities, benztropine is frequently continued indefinitely without a clinical indication for its continuous use. Assessment and indication for continued use of benztropine should be considered regularly, and it should be discontinued when there is no clear indication for its use or when adverse effects emerge.

Prescribing benztropine for TD

TD is a subtype of tardive syndromes associated with the use of antipsychotics. It is characterized by repetitive involuntary movements such as lip smacking, puckering, chewing, or tongue protrusion. Proposed pathophysiological mechanisms include dopamine receptor hypersensitivity, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor excitotoxicity, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-containing neuron activity.

According to the APA Guideline, evidence of benztropine’s efficacy for the prevention of TD is lacking.⁴ A 2018 Cochrane systematic review⁹ was unable to provide a definitive conclusion regarding the effectiveness of benztropine and other anticholinergics for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced TD. While many clinicians believe that benztropine can be used to treat all types of EPS, there are no clear instances in reviewed literature where the efficacy of benztropine for treating TD could be reliably demonstrated. Furthermore, some literature suggests that anticholinergics such as benztropine increase the risk of developing TD.^5,10 The mechanism underlying benztropine’s ability to precipitate or exacerbate abnormal movements is unclear, though it is theorized that anticholinergic medications may inhibit dopamine reuptake into neurons, thus leading to an excess of dopamine in the synaptic cleft that manifests as dyskinesias.¹⁰ Some authors also recommend that the first step in the management of TD should be to gradually discontinue anticholinergics, as this has been associated with improvement in TD.¹¹

Continue to: Prescribing anticholinergics in specific patient populations...

 

 

Prescribing anticholinergics in specific patient populations

In addition to the adverse effects described above, benztropine can affect cognition, as we observed in Ms. P. The cholinergic system plays a role in human cognition, and blockade of muscarinic receptors has been associated with impairments in working memory and prefrontal tasks.¹² These adverse cognitive effects are more pronounced in certain populations, including patients with schizophrenia and older adults.

Schizophrenia is associated with declining cognitive function, and the cognitive faculties of patients with schizophrenia may be worsened by anticholinergics. In patients with schizophrenia, social interactions and social integration are often impacted by profound negative symptoms such as social withdrawal and poverty of thought and speech.¹³ In a double-blind study by Baker et al,¹⁴ benztropine was found to have an impact on attention and concentration in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Baker et al¹⁴ found that patients with schizophrenia who were switched from benztropine to placebo increased their overall Wechsler Memory Scale scores compared to those maintained on benztropine. One crosssectional analysis found that a higher anticholinergic burden was associated with impairments across all cognitive domains, including memory, attention/control, executive and visuospatial functioning, and motor speed domains.¹⁵ Importantly, a higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance.¹⁵ In addition to impairments in cognitive processing, anticholinergics have been associated with a decreased ability to benefit from psychosocial programs and impaired abilities to manage activities of daily living.⁴ In another study exploring the effects of discontinuing anticholinergics and the impact on movement disorders, Desmarais et al¹⁶ found patients experienced a significant improvement in scores on the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia after discontinuing anticholinergics. Vinogradov et al¹⁷ noted that “serum anticholinergic activity in schizophrenia patients shows a significant association with impaired performance in measures of verbal working memory and verbal learning memory and was significantly associated with a lowered response to an intensive course of computerized cognitive training.” They felt their findings underscored the cognitive cost of medications with high anticholinergic burden.

Geriatric patients. Careful consideration should be given before starting benztropine in patients age ≥65. The 2019 American Geriatric Society’s Beers Criteria¹⁸ recommend avoiding benztropine in geriatric patients; the level of recommendation is strong. Furthermore, the American Geriatric Society designates benztropine as a medication that should be avoided, and a nondrug approach or alternative medication be prescribed independent of the patient’s condition or diagnosis. In a recently published case report, Esang et al¹⁹ highlighted several salient findings from previous studies on the risks associated with anticholinergic use:

• any medications a patient takes with anticholinergic properties contribute to the overall anticholinergic load of a patient’s medication regimen
• the higher the anticholinergic burden, the greater the cognitive deficits
• switching from an FGA to an SGA may decrease the risk of EPS and may limit the need for anticholinergic medications such as benztropine for a particular patient.

One must also consider that the effects of multiple medications with anticholinergic properties is probably cumulative.

Alternatives for treating drug-induced parkinsonism

Antipsychotics exert their effects through antagonism of the D2 receptor, and this is the same mechanism that leads to parkinsonism. Specifically, the mechanism is believed to be D2 receptor antagonism in the striatum leading to disinhibition of striatal neurons containing GABA.¹¹ This disinhibition of medium spiny neurons is propagated when acetylcholine is released from cholinergic interneurons. Anticholinergics such as benztropine can remedy symptoms by blocking the signal of acetylcholine on the M1 receptors on medium spiny neurons. However, benztropine also has the propensity to decrease cholinergic transmission, thereby impairing storage of new information into long-term memory as well as impair perception of time—similar to effects seen with (for instance) diphenhydramine.²⁰

The first step in managing drug-induced parkinsonism is to monitor symptoms. The APA Guideline recommends monitoring for acute-onset EPS at weekly intervals when beginning treatment and until stable for 2 weeks, and then monitoring at every follow-up visit thereafter.⁴ The next recommendation for long-term management of drug-induced parkinsonism is reducing the antipsychotic dose, or replacing the patient’s antipsychotic with an antipsychotic that is less likely to precipitate parkinsonism,4 such as quetiapine, iloperidone, or clozapine.¹¹ If dose reduction is not possible, and the patient’s symptoms are severe, pharmacologic management is indicated. The APA Guideline recommends amantadine as a first-line agent because it is associated with fewer peripheral adverse effects and less impairment in cognition compared with benztropine.⁴ In a small (N = 60) doubleblind crossover trial, Gelenberg et al²⁰ found benztropine 4 mg/d—but not amantadine 200 mg/d—impaired free recall and perception of time, and participants’ perception of their own memory impairment was significantly greater with benztropine. Amantadine has also been compared to biperiden, a relatively selective M1 muscarinic receptor muscarinic agent. In a separate double-blind crossover study of 26 patients with chronic schizophrenia, Silver and Geraisy²¹ found that compared to amantadine, biperiden was associated with worse memory performance. The recommended starting dose of amantadine for parkinsonism is 100 mg in the morning, increased to 100 mg twice a day and titrated to a maximum daily dose of 300 mg/d in divided doses.⁴

Continue to: Alternatives for treating drug-induced akathisia...

 

 

Alternatives for treating drug-induced akathisia

Akathisia remains a relatively common adverse effect of SGAs, and the profound physical distress and impaired functioning caused by akathisia necessitates pharmacologic treatment. Despite frequent use in practice for presumed benefit in akathisia, benztropine is not effective for the treatment of akathisia and the APA Guideline recommends that long-term management should begin with an antipsychotic dose reduction, followed by a switch to an agent with less propensity to incite akathisia.⁴ Acute manifestations of akathisia must be treated, and mirtazapine, propranolol, or clonazepam may be considered as alternatives.⁴ Mirtazapine is dosed 7.5 mg to 10 mg nightly for akathisia, though it should be used in caution in patients at risk for mania.⁴ Mirtazapine’s potent 5-HT2A blockade at low doses may contribute to its utility in treating akathisia.² Propranolol, a nonselective lipophilic beta-adrenergic antagonist, also has demonstrated efficacy in managing akathisia, with recommended dosing of 40 mg to 80 mg twice daily.² Benzodiazepines such as clonazepam require judicious use for akathisia because they may also precipitate or exacerbate cognitive impairment.⁴

Alternatives for treating TD

As mentioned above, benztropine is not recommended for the treatment of TD.¹ The Box^4,22,23 outlines potential treatment options for TD.

Box

Discontinuing benztropine

Benztropine is recommended as a firstline agent for the management of acute dystonia, and it may be used temporarily for drug-induced parkinsonism, but it is not recommended to prevent EPS or TD. Given the multitude of adverse effects and cognitive impairment noted with anticholinergics, tapering should be considered for patients receiving an anticholinergic agent such as benztropine. Based on their review of earlier studies, Desmarais et al⁵ suggest a gradual 3-month discontinuation of benztropine. Multiple studies have demonstrated an ability to taper anticholinergics in days to months.⁴ However, gradual discontinuation is advisable to avoid cholinergic rebound and the reemergence of EPS, and to decrease the risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with sudden discontinuation.⁵ One suggested taper regimen is a decrease of 0.5 mg benztropine every week. Amantadine may be considered if parkinsonism is noted during the taper. Patients on benztropine may develop rebound symptoms, such as vivid dreams/nightmares; if this occurs, the taper rate can be slowed to a decrease of 0.5 mg every 2 weeks.⁴

Continue to: First do no harm...

 

 

First do no harm

Psychiatrists commonly prescribe benztropine to prevent EPS and TD, but available literature does not support the efficacy of benztropine for mitigating drug-induced parkinsonism, and studies report benztropine may significantly worsen cognitive processes and exacerbate TD.¹⁶ In addition, benztropine misuse has been correlated with euphoria and psychosis.¹⁶ More than 3 decades ago, the World Health Organization Heads of Centres Collaborating in WHO-Coordinated Studies on Biological Aspects of Mental Illness issued a consensus statement²⁴ discouraging the prophylactic use of anticholinergics for patients receiving antipsychotics, yet we still see patients on an indefinite regimen of benztropine.

As clinicians, our goals should be to optimize a patient’s functioning and quality of life, and to use the lowest dose of medication along with the fewest medications necessary to avoid adverse effects such as EPS. Benztropine is recommended as a first-line agent for the management of acute dystonia, but its continued or indefinite use to prevent antipsychotic-induced adverse effects is not recommended. While all pharmacologic interventions carry a risk of adverse effects, weighing the risk of those effects against the clinical benefits is the prerogative of a skilled clinician. Benztropine and other anticholinergics prescribed for prophylactic purposes have numerous adverse effects, limited clinical utility, and a deleterious effect on quality of life. Furthermore, benztropine prophylaxis of drug-induced parkinsonism does not seem to be warranted, and the risks do not seem to outweigh the harm benztropine may cause, with the possible exception of “prophylactic” treatment of dystonia that is discontinued in a few days, as some researchers have suggested.^6-8 The preventive value of benztropine has not been demonstrated. It is time we took inventory of medications that might cause more harm than good, rely on current treatment guidelines instead of habit, and use these agents judiciously while considering replacement with novel, safer medications whenever possible.

CASE CONTINUED

The clinical team considers benztropine’s ability to cause cognitive effects, and decides to taper and discontinue it over 1 month. Ms. P is seen in an outpatient clinic within 1 month of discontinuing benztropine. She reports that her difficulty remembering words and details has improved. She also says that she is now able to concentrate on writing and reading. The consulting neurologist also notes improvement. Ms. P continues to report improvement in symptoms over the next 2 months of follow-up, and says that her mood improved and she has less apathy.

Bottom Line

Benztropine is a first-line medication for acute dystonia, but its continued or indefinite use for preventing antipsychotic-induced adverse effects is not recommended. Given the multitude of adverse effects and cognitive impairment noted with anticholinergics, tapering should be considered for patients receiving an anticholinergic medication such as benztropine.

Ms. P, a 63-year-old woman with a history of schizophrenia whose symptoms have been stable on haloperidol 10 mg/d and ziprasidone 40 mg twice daily, presents to the outpatient clinic for a medication review. She mentions that she has noticed problems with her “memory.” She says she has had difficulty remembering names of people and places as well as difficulty concentrating while reading and writing, which she did months ago with ease. A Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is conducted, and Ms. P scores 13/30, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. Visuospatial tasks and clock drawing are intact, but she exhibits impairments in working memory, attention, and concentration. One year ago, Ms. P’s MoCA score was 27/30. She agrees to a neurologic assessment and is referred to neurology for work-up.

Ms. P’s physical examination and routine laboratory tests are all within normal limits. The neurologic exam reveals deficits in working memory, concentration, and attention, but is otherwise unremarkable. MRI reveals mild chronic microvascular changes. The neurology service does not rule out cognitive impairment but recommends adjusting the dosage of Ms. P’s psychiatric medications to elucidate if her impairment of memory and attention is due to medications. However, Ms. P had been managed on her current regimen for several years and had not been hospitalized in many years. Previous attempts to taper her antipsychotics had resulted in worsening symptoms. Ms. P is reluctant to attempt a taper of her antipsychotics because she fears decompensation of her chronic illness. The treating team reviews Ms. P’s medication regimen, and notes that she is receiving benztropine 1 mg twice daily for prophylaxis of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS). Ms. P denies past or present symptoms of drug-induced parkinsonism, dystonia, or akathisia as well as constipation, sialorrhea, blurry vision, palpitations, or urinary retention.

Benztropine is a tropane alkaloid that was synthetized by combining the tropine portion of atropine with the benzhydryl portion of diphenhydramine hydrochloride. It has anticholinergic and antihistaminic properties¹ and seems to inhibit the dopamine transporter. Benztropine is indicated for all forms of parkinsonism, including antipsychotic-induced parkinsonism, but is also prescribed for many off-label uses, including sialorrhea and akathisia (although many authors do not recommend anticholinergics for this purpose^2,3), and for prophylaxis of EPS. Benztropine can be administered intravenously, intramuscularly, or orally. Given orally, the typical dosing is twice daily with a maximum dose of 6 mg/d. Benztropine is preferred over diphenhydramine and trihexyphenidyl due to adverse effects of sedation or potential for misuse of the medication.¹

Second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) have been associated with lower rates of neurologic adverse effects compared with first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs). Because SGAs are increasingly prescribed, the use of benztropine (along with other agents such as trihexyphenidyl) for EPS prophylaxis is not an evidence-based practice. However, despite a movement away from prophylactic management of movement disorders, benztropine continues to be prescribed for EPS and/or cholinergic symptoms, despite the peripheral and cognitive adverse effects of this agent and, in many instances, the lack of clear indication for its use.

According to the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients with Schizophrenia,⁴ anticholinergics should only be used for preventing acute dystonia in conjunction with a long-acting injectable antipsychotic. Furthermore, the APA Guideline states anticholinergics may be used for drug-induced parkinsonism when the dose of an antipsychotic cannot be reduced and an alternative agent is required. However, the first-line agent for drug-induced parkinsonism is amantadine, and benztropine should only be considered if amantadine is contraindicated.⁴ The rationale for this guideline and for judicious use of anticholinergics is that like any pharmacologic treatment, anticholinergics (including benztropine) carry the potential for adverse effects. For benztropine, these range from mild effects such as tachycardia and constipation to paralytic ileus, increased falls, worsening of tardive dyskinesia (TD), and potential cognitive impairment. Literature suggests that the first step in managing cognitive concerns in a patient with schizophrenia should be a close review of medications, and avoidance of agents with anticholinergic properties.⁵

Prescribing benztropine for EPS

EPS, which include dystonia, akathisia, drug-induced parkinsonism, and TD, are very frequent adverse effects noted with antipsychotics. Benztropine has demonstrated benefit in managing acute dystonia and the APA Guideline recommends IM administration of either benztropine 1 mg or diphenhydramine 25 mg for this purpose.⁴ However, in our experience, the most frequent indication for long-term prescribing of benztropine is prophylaxis of antipsychoticinduced dystonia. This use was suggested by some older studies. In a 1987 study by Boyer et al,⁶ patients who were administered benztropine with haloperidol did not develop acute dystonia, while patients who received haloperidol alone developed dystonia. However, this was a small retrospective study with methodological issues. Boyer et al⁶ suggested discontinuing prophylaxis with benztropine within 1 week, as acute dystonia occurred within 2.5 days. Other researchers^7,8 have argued that short-term prophylaxis with benztropine for 1 week may work, especially during treatment with high-potency antipsychotics. However, in a review of the use of anticholinergics in conjunction with antipsychotics, Desmarais et al⁵ concluded that there is no need for prophylaxis and recommended alternative treatments. As we have noticed in Ms. P and other patients treated in our facilities, benztropine is frequently continued indefinitely without a clinical indication for its continuous use. Assessment and indication for continued use of benztropine should be considered regularly, and it should be discontinued when there is no clear indication for its use or when adverse effects emerge.

Prescribing benztropine for TD

TD is a subtype of tardive syndromes associated with the use of antipsychotics. It is characterized by repetitive involuntary movements such as lip smacking, puckering, chewing, or tongue protrusion. Proposed pathophysiological mechanisms include dopamine receptor hypersensitivity, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor excitotoxicity, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-containing neuron activity.

According to the APA Guideline, evidence of benztropine’s efficacy for the prevention of TD is lacking.⁴ A 2018 Cochrane systematic review⁹ was unable to provide a definitive conclusion regarding the effectiveness of benztropine and other anticholinergics for the treatment of antipsychotic-induced TD. While many clinicians believe that benztropine can be used to treat all types of EPS, there are no clear instances in reviewed literature where the efficacy of benztropine for treating TD could be reliably demonstrated. Furthermore, some literature suggests that anticholinergics such as benztropine increase the risk of developing TD.^5,10 The mechanism underlying benztropine’s ability to precipitate or exacerbate abnormal movements is unclear, though it is theorized that anticholinergic medications may inhibit dopamine reuptake into neurons, thus leading to an excess of dopamine in the synaptic cleft that manifests as dyskinesias.¹⁰ Some authors also recommend that the first step in the management of TD should be to gradually discontinue anticholinergics, as this has been associated with improvement in TD.¹¹

Continue to: Prescribing anticholinergics in specific patient populations...

 

 

Prescribing anticholinergics in specific patient populations

In addition to the adverse effects described above, benztropine can affect cognition, as we observed in Ms. P. The cholinergic system plays a role in human cognition, and blockade of muscarinic receptors has been associated with impairments in working memory and prefrontal tasks.¹² These adverse cognitive effects are more pronounced in certain populations, including patients with schizophrenia and older adults.

Schizophrenia is associated with declining cognitive function, and the cognitive faculties of patients with schizophrenia may be worsened by anticholinergics. In patients with schizophrenia, social interactions and social integration are often impacted by profound negative symptoms such as social withdrawal and poverty of thought and speech.¹³ In a double-blind study by Baker et al,¹⁴ benztropine was found to have an impact on attention and concentration in patients with chronic schizophrenia. Baker et al¹⁴ found that patients with schizophrenia who were switched from benztropine to placebo increased their overall Wechsler Memory Scale scores compared to those maintained on benztropine. One crosssectional analysis found that a higher anticholinergic burden was associated with impairments across all cognitive domains, including memory, attention/control, executive and visuospatial functioning, and motor speed domains.¹⁵ Importantly, a higher anticholinergic medication burden was associated with worse cognitive performance.¹⁵ In addition to impairments in cognitive processing, anticholinergics have been associated with a decreased ability to benefit from psychosocial programs and impaired abilities to manage activities of daily living.⁴ In another study exploring the effects of discontinuing anticholinergics and the impact on movement disorders, Desmarais et al¹⁶ found patients experienced a significant improvement in scores on the Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia after discontinuing anticholinergics. Vinogradov et al¹⁷ noted that “serum anticholinergic activity in schizophrenia patients shows a significant association with impaired performance in measures of verbal working memory and verbal learning memory and was significantly associated with a lowered response to an intensive course of computerized cognitive training.” They felt their findings underscored the cognitive cost of medications with high anticholinergic burden.

Geriatric patients. Careful consideration should be given before starting benztropine in patients age ≥65. The 2019 American Geriatric Society’s Beers Criteria¹⁸ recommend avoiding benztropine in geriatric patients; the level of recommendation is strong. Furthermore, the American Geriatric Society designates benztropine as a medication that should be avoided, and a nondrug approach or alternative medication be prescribed independent of the patient’s condition or diagnosis. In a recently published case report, Esang et al¹⁹ highlighted several salient findings from previous studies on the risks associated with anticholinergic use:

• any medications a patient takes with anticholinergic properties contribute to the overall anticholinergic load of a patient’s medication regimen
• the higher the anticholinergic burden, the greater the cognitive deficits
• switching from an FGA to an SGA may decrease the risk of EPS and may limit the need for anticholinergic medications such as benztropine for a particular patient.

One must also consider that the effects of multiple medications with anticholinergic properties is probably cumulative.

Alternatives for treating drug-induced parkinsonism

Antipsychotics exert their effects through antagonism of the D2 receptor, and this is the same mechanism that leads to parkinsonism. Specifically, the mechanism is believed to be D2 receptor antagonism in the striatum leading to disinhibition of striatal neurons containing GABA.¹¹ This disinhibition of medium spiny neurons is propagated when acetylcholine is released from cholinergic interneurons. Anticholinergics such as benztropine can remedy symptoms by blocking the signal of acetylcholine on the M1 receptors on medium spiny neurons. However, benztropine also has the propensity to decrease cholinergic transmission, thereby impairing storage of new information into long-term memory as well as impair perception of time—similar to effects seen with (for instance) diphenhydramine.²⁰

The first step in managing drug-induced parkinsonism is to monitor symptoms. The APA Guideline recommends monitoring for acute-onset EPS at weekly intervals when beginning treatment and until stable for 2 weeks, and then monitoring at every follow-up visit thereafter.⁴ The next recommendation for long-term management of drug-induced parkinsonism is reducing the antipsychotic dose, or replacing the patient’s antipsychotic with an antipsychotic that is less likely to precipitate parkinsonism,4 such as quetiapine, iloperidone, or clozapine.¹¹ If dose reduction is not possible, and the patient’s symptoms are severe, pharmacologic management is indicated. The APA Guideline recommends amantadine as a first-line agent because it is associated with fewer peripheral adverse effects and less impairment in cognition compared with benztropine.⁴ In a small (N = 60) doubleblind crossover trial, Gelenberg et al²⁰ found benztropine 4 mg/d—but not amantadine 200 mg/d—impaired free recall and perception of time, and participants’ perception of their own memory impairment was significantly greater with benztropine. Amantadine has also been compared to biperiden, a relatively selective M1 muscarinic receptor muscarinic agent. In a separate double-blind crossover study of 26 patients with chronic schizophrenia, Silver and Geraisy²¹ found that compared to amantadine, biperiden was associated with worse memory performance. The recommended starting dose of amantadine for parkinsonism is 100 mg in the morning, increased to 100 mg twice a day and titrated to a maximum daily dose of 300 mg/d in divided doses.⁴

Continue to: Alternatives for treating drug-induced akathisia...

 

 

Alternatives for treating drug-induced akathisia

Akathisia remains a relatively common adverse effect of SGAs, and the profound physical distress and impaired functioning caused by akathisia necessitates pharmacologic treatment. Despite frequent use in practice for presumed benefit in akathisia, benztropine is not effective for the treatment of akathisia and the APA Guideline recommends that long-term management should begin with an antipsychotic dose reduction, followed by a switch to an agent with less propensity to incite akathisia.⁴ Acute manifestations of akathisia must be treated, and mirtazapine, propranolol, or clonazepam may be considered as alternatives.⁴ Mirtazapine is dosed 7.5 mg to 10 mg nightly for akathisia, though it should be used in caution in patients at risk for mania.⁴ Mirtazapine’s potent 5-HT2A blockade at low doses may contribute to its utility in treating akathisia.² Propranolol, a nonselective lipophilic beta-adrenergic antagonist, also has demonstrated efficacy in managing akathisia, with recommended dosing of 40 mg to 80 mg twice daily.² Benzodiazepines such as clonazepam require judicious use for akathisia because they may also precipitate or exacerbate cognitive impairment.⁴

Alternatives for treating TD

As mentioned above, benztropine is not recommended for the treatment of TD.¹ The Box^4,22,23 outlines potential treatment options for TD.

Box

Discontinuing benztropine

Benztropine is recommended as a firstline agent for the management of acute dystonia, and it may be used temporarily for drug-induced parkinsonism, but it is not recommended to prevent EPS or TD. Given the multitude of adverse effects and cognitive impairment noted with anticholinergics, tapering should be considered for patients receiving an anticholinergic agent such as benztropine. Based on their review of earlier studies, Desmarais et al⁵ suggest a gradual 3-month discontinuation of benztropine. Multiple studies have demonstrated an ability to taper anticholinergics in days to months.⁴ However, gradual discontinuation is advisable to avoid cholinergic rebound and the reemergence of EPS, and to decrease the risk of neuroleptic malignant syndrome associated with sudden discontinuation.⁵ One suggested taper regimen is a decrease of 0.5 mg benztropine every week. Amantadine may be considered if parkinsonism is noted during the taper. Patients on benztropine may develop rebound symptoms, such as vivid dreams/nightmares; if this occurs, the taper rate can be slowed to a decrease of 0.5 mg every 2 weeks.⁴

Continue to: First do no harm...

 

 

First do no harm

Psychiatrists commonly prescribe benztropine to prevent EPS and TD, but available literature does not support the efficacy of benztropine for mitigating drug-induced parkinsonism, and studies report benztropine may significantly worsen cognitive processes and exacerbate TD.¹⁶ In addition, benztropine misuse has been correlated with euphoria and psychosis.¹⁶ More than 3 decades ago, the World Health Organization Heads of Centres Collaborating in WHO-Coordinated Studies on Biological Aspects of Mental Illness issued a consensus statement²⁴ discouraging the prophylactic use of anticholinergics for patients receiving antipsychotics, yet we still see patients on an indefinite regimen of benztropine.

As clinicians, our goals should be to optimize a patient’s functioning and quality of life, and to use the lowest dose of medication along with the fewest medications necessary to avoid adverse effects such as EPS. Benztropine is recommended as a first-line agent for the management of acute dystonia, but its continued or indefinite use to prevent antipsychotic-induced adverse effects is not recommended. While all pharmacologic interventions carry a risk of adverse effects, weighing the risk of those effects against the clinical benefits is the prerogative of a skilled clinician. Benztropine and other anticholinergics prescribed for prophylactic purposes have numerous adverse effects, limited clinical utility, and a deleterious effect on quality of life. Furthermore, benztropine prophylaxis of drug-induced parkinsonism does not seem to be warranted, and the risks do not seem to outweigh the harm benztropine may cause, with the possible exception of “prophylactic” treatment of dystonia that is discontinued in a few days, as some researchers have suggested.^6-8 The preventive value of benztropine has not been demonstrated. It is time we took inventory of medications that might cause more harm than good, rely on current treatment guidelines instead of habit, and use these agents judiciously while considering replacement with novel, safer medications whenever possible.

CASE CONTINUED

The clinical team considers benztropine’s ability to cause cognitive effects, and decides to taper and discontinue it over 1 month. Ms. P is seen in an outpatient clinic within 1 month of discontinuing benztropine. She reports that her difficulty remembering words and details has improved. She also says that she is now able to concentrate on writing and reading. The consulting neurologist also notes improvement. Ms. P continues to report improvement in symptoms over the next 2 months of follow-up, and says that her mood improved and she has less apathy.

Bottom Line

Benztropine is a first-line medication for acute dystonia, but its continued or indefinite use for preventing antipsychotic-induced adverse effects is not recommended. Given the multitude of adverse effects and cognitive impairment noted with anticholinergics, tapering should be considered for patients receiving an anticholinergic medication such as benztropine.

SECOND OF 2 PARTS

Evidence supports the crucial role of early intervention and nonpharmacologic approaches

A large percentage of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) experience persisting significant social deficits in adulthood,¹ which often leads to isolation, depressive symptoms, and poor occupational and relationship functioning.^2,3 Childhood is a vital time for making the most significant and lasting changes that can improve functioning of individuals with ASD. Psychiatrists and other physicians who treat children are in a key role to influence outcomes of children at risk for or diagnosed with ASD.

This article provides updates on various aspects of ASD diagnosis and treatment (based on available evidence up to March 2020). Part 1 (Current Psychiatry, March 2022) focused on early detection and diagnosis. Here in Part 2, I describe an overview of treatment strategies. Given the vast nature of the topic and the abundance of research that has emerged in the field of ASD over the last several years,⁴ providing an exhaustive review of each of the aspects discussed here is not within the scope of this article.

A comprehensive approach is essential

Multiple treatment modalities have been recommended for ASD.⁵ It is essential to address all aspects of ASD through cognitive, developmental, social-communication, sensory-motor, and behavioral interventions. Nonpharmacologic interventions are crucial in improving long-term outcomes of children with ASD.⁶

Nonpharmacologic treatments

Nonpharmacologic interventions commonly utilized for children with ASD include behavioral therapies, other psychological therapies, speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, educational interventions, parent coaching/training, developmental social interventions, and other modalities of therapy that are delivered in school, home, and clinic settings.^5,7

A recent study examining ASD treatment trends via caregivers’ reports (N = 5,122) from the SPARK (Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge) cohort in the United States reported that 80% of children received speech-language therapy or occupational therapy; 52% got both.⁵ The study revealed that approximately one-quarter utilized 3 therapies simultaneously; two-thirds had utilized 3 or more therapies in the previous year.⁵

Interventions for children with ASD need to be individualized.^1,8 Evidence-based behavioral interventions for ASD fall into 2 broad categories: Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), and Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NDBI). Traditionally, ABA has been a key model, guiding treatment for enhancing social-communicating skills and lowering maladaptive behaviors in ASD.⁹ ABA follows a structured and prescribed format,^10,11 and has been shown to be efficacious.^1,7 More recently, NDBI, in which interventions are “embedded” in the natural environment of the young child and more actively incorporate a developmental perspective, has been shown to be beneficial in improving and generalizing social-communication skills in young children with ASD.^7,11

Early Start Denver Model (ESDM) is an intensive, naturalistic behavioral intervention⁴ that has been shown to be efficacious for enhancing communication and adaptive behavior in children with ASD.^7,8,12 A multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Rogers et al¹² that examined the efficacy of ESDM in 118 children (age 14 to 24 months) with ASD found the treatment was beneficial and superior compared with a “community intervention” group, in regards to language ability measured in time by group analyses.The ESDM intervention in this study involved weekly parent coaching for 3 months, along with 24 months of 15 hours/week of one-on-one treatment provided by therapy professionals.¹²

Reciprocal imitation training (RIT) is another naturalistic intervention that has shown benefit in training children with ASD in imitation skills during play.¹³ Studies have found that both RIT and ESDM can be parent-implemented, after parents receive training.^13,14

Parent-mediated, parent-implemented interventions may have a role in improving outcomes in childhood ASD,^7,15 particularly “better generalization and maintenance of skills than therapist-implemented intervention” for lowering challenging behaviors and enhancing verbal and nonverbal communication.¹⁶

Various social skills interventions have also been found effective for children with ASD.¹ Such interventions are often provided in the school setting.⁷ Coordination with the child’s school to discuss and advocating for adequate and suitable interventions, educational services, and placement is an essential aspect of ASD treatment.⁷

Two other school-based, comprehensive treatment model interventions—Learning Experiences and Alternative Programs for Preschoolers and their Parents (LEAP), and TEACCH—have some evidence of leading to improvement in children with ASD.^7,17

Some studies have found that music therapy may have high efficacy for children with ASD, even with smaller length and intensity of treatment, particularly in improving social interaction, engagement with parents, joint attention, and communication.^3,18 Further research is needed to conclusively establish the efficacy of music therapy for ASD in children and adolescents.

A few studies have assessed the long-term outcomes of interventions for ASD; however, more research is needed.¹⁹ Pickles et al¹⁹ conducted a follow-up to determine the long-term effects of the Preschool Autism Communication Trial (PACT), an RCT of parent-mediated social communication therapy for children age 2 to 4 with ASD. The children’s average age at follow-up was 10 years. The authors found a significant long-term decrease in ASD symptoms and enhancement of social communication with parents (N = 152).¹⁹

Technology-based interventions, including games and robotics, have been investigated in recent years, for treatment of children with ASD (eg, for improving social skills).²⁰

Research suggests that the intensity (number of hours) and duration of nonpharmacologic treatments for ASD is critical to improving outcomes (Box^{1,3,5,7,10,16}).

Box

Continue to: Pharmacotherapy...

Pharmacotherapy

Medications cannot resolve core features of ASD.²¹ However, certain medications may help address associated comorbidities, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, or others, when these conditions have not responded to nonpharmacologic interventions.^7,22 Common symptoms that are often treated with pharmacotherapy include aggression, irritability, hyperactivity, attentional difficulties, tics, self-injurious behavior, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and mood dysregulation/lability.²³ Generally speaking, medications might be considered if symptoms are severe and markedly impair functioning. For mild to moderate conditions, psychotherapy and other nonpharmacologic interventions are generally considered first-line. Since none of the medications described below are specific to ASD and psychiatrists generally receive training in prescribing them for other indications, a comprehensive review of their risks and benefits is beyond the scope of this article. No psychotropic medications are known to have robust evidence for safety in preschool children with ASD, and thus are best avoided.

Antipsychotics. Risperidone (for age 5 and older) and aripiprazole (age 6 to 17) are the only medications FDA-approved for use in children and adolescents with ASD, specifically for irritability associated with ASD.^21,24 These 2 second-generation antipsychotics may also assist in lowering aggression in patients with ASD.²⁴ First-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol have been shown to be effective for irritability and aggression in ASD, but the risk of significant adverse effects such as dyskinesias and extrapyramidal symptoms limit their use.²⁴ Two studies (a double-blind study and an open-label extension of that study) in children and adolescents with ASD found that risperidone was more effective and better tolerated than haloperidol in behavioral measures, impulsivity, and even in the social domain.^25,26 In addition to other adverse effects and risks, increased prolactin secondary to risperidone use requires close monitoring and caution.^24-26 As is the case with the use of other psychotropic medications in children and adolescents, those with ASD who receive antipsychotics should also be periodically reassessed to determine the need for continued use of these medications.²⁷ A multicenter relapse prevention RCT found no statistically significant difference in the time to relapse between aripiprazole and placebo.²⁷ Metabolic syndrome, cardiac risks, and other risks need to be considered before prescribing an antipsychotic.²⁸ Given their serious adverse effects profile, use should be considered only when there is severe impairment or risk of injury, after carefully weighing risks/benefits.

Medications for attentional difficulties. A multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the use of extended-release guanfacine in children with ASD (N = 62) found the rate of positive response on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement scale was 50% for guanfacine vs 9.4% for placebo.²⁹ Clinicians need to monitor for adverse effects of guanfacine, such as fatigue, drowsiness, lightheadedness, lowering of blood pressure and heart rate, and other effects.²⁹ A randomized, double-blind trial of 97 children and adolescents with ASD and ADHD found that atomoxetine had moderate benefit for ADHD symptoms.³⁰ The study reported no serious adverse effects.³⁰ However, it is especially important to monitor for hepatic and cardiac adverse effects (in addition to monitoring for risk of increase in suicidal thoughts/behavior, as in the case of antidepressants) when using atomoxetine, in addition to other side effects and risks. Some evidence suggests that methylphenidate may be effective for attentional difficulties in children and adolescents with ASD²¹ but may pose a higher risk of adverse effects in this population compared with neurotypical patients.³¹

Antidepressants. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are sometimes used to reduce obsessive-compulsive symptoms, repetitive behavior, or depressive symptoms in children with ASD, but are not FDA-approved for children or adolescents with ASD. In general, there is inadequate evidence to support the use of SSRIs for ASD in children.^31-34 In addition, children with ASD may be at a greater risk of adverse effects from SSRIs.^32,34 Despite this, SSRIs are the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medications in children with ASD.³²

An RCT examining the efficacy of fluoxetine in 158 children and adolescents with ASD found no significant difference in Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score after 14 weeks of treatment; activation was a common adverse effect.³⁵ A 2005 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 45 children/adolescents with ASD found that low-dose liquid fluoxetine was more effective than placebo for reducing repetitive behaviors in this population.³⁶ Larger studies are warranted to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine (and of SSRIs in general, particularly in the long term) for children and adolescents with ASD.³⁶ A 2009 randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 149 children with ASD revealed no significant difference between citalopram and placebo as measured by Clinical Global Impressions scale or CY-BOCS scores, and noted a significantly elevated likelihood of adverse effects.³⁷

Other antidepressants. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any other antidepressants in children and adolescents with ASD. A few studies^38,39 have examined the use of venlafaxine in children with ASD; however, further research and controlled studies with large sample sizes are required to conclusively establish its benefits. There is a dearth of evidence examining the use of the tetracyclic antidepressant mirtazapine, or other classes of medications such as tricyclic antidepressants or mood stabilizers, in children with ASD; only a few small studies have assessed the efficacy and adverse effects of these medications for such patients.³¹

Polypharmacy. Although there is no evidence to support polypharmacy in children and adolescents with ASD, the practice appears to be rampant in these patients.^28,40 A 2013 retrospective, observational study of psychotropic medication use in children with ASD (N = 33,565) found that 64% were prescribed psychotropic medications, and 35% exhibited evidence of polypharmacy.⁴⁰ In this study, the total duration of polypharmacy averaged 525 days.⁴⁰ When addressing polypharmacy, systematic deprescribing or simplification of the psychotropic medication regimen may be needed,²⁸ while taking into account the patient’s complete clinical situation, including (but not limited to) tolerability of the medication regimen, presence or absence of current stressors, presence or absence of adequate supports, use of nonpharmacologic treatments where appropriate, and other factors.

More studies assessing the efficacy and safety of psychotropic medications for children and adolescents with ASD are needed,³² especially studies that evaluate the effects of long-term use, because evidence for pharmacologic treatments for children with ASD is mixed and insufficient.³³ There is also a need for evidence-based standards for prescribing psychotropic medications in children and adolescents with ASD.

Psychotropic medications, if used in ASD, should be used only in conjunction with other evidence-based treatment modalities, and not as monotherapy.²¹ Children and adolescents with ASD may be particularly susceptible to side effects or adverse effects of certain psychotropic medications.³¹ When considering medications, carefully weigh the risks and benefits.^7,21,24,28 Starting low and going slow is generally the preferred strategy.^31,32 As always, when recommending medications, discuss in detail with parents the potential side effects, benefits, risks, interactions, and alternatives.

Other agents. Several double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have evaluated using melatonin for sleep difficulties in children and adolescents with ASD.⁴¹ A randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week trial that assessed 160 children with ASD and insomnia found that melatonin plus cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) was superior in efficacy to melatonin alone, CBT alone, or placebo.⁴¹

The evidence regarding oxytocin use for children with ASD is mixed.³¹ Some small studies have associated improvement in the social domain with its use. Guastella et al⁴² conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oxytocin nasal spray for 16 participants (age 12 to 19) with ASD, and found oxytocin enhanced emotional identification. Gordon et al⁴³ conducted a functional MRI study of brain activity with oxytocin use in children with high-functioning ASD (N = 17). They found that oxytocin may augment “salience and hedonic evaluations of socially meaningful stimuli in children with ASD” and thus help social attunement. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of oxytocin on social behavior.

Complementary and alternative medicine. Although there is limited and inconclusive evidence about the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children and adolescents with ASD, these therapies continue to be commonly used.^44-46 A recent survey of parents (N = 211) of children with ASD from academic ASD outpatient clinics in Germany found that 46% reported their child was using or had used some type of complementary and alternative medicine.⁴⁴ There is inadequate evidence to support the use of a gluten-free, casein-free diet for children/adolescents with ASD.⁴⁶ A recent cross-sectional study assessing supplement use in 210 children with ASD in Canada found that 75% used supplements, such as multivitamins (77.8%), vitamin D (44.9%), omega 3 (42.5%), probiotics (36.5%), and magnesium (28.1%), despite insufficient evidence to support their safety or efficacy for children with ASD.⁴⁷ Importantly, 33.5% of parents in this study reported that they did not inform the physician about all their child’s supplements.⁴⁷ Some of the reasons the parents in this study provided for not disclosing information about supplements to their physicians were “physician lack of knowledge,” “no benefit,” “too time-consuming,” and “scared of judgment.”⁴⁷ Semi-structured interviews of parents of 21 children with ASD in Australia revealed that parents found information on complementary and alternative medicine and therapies complex and often conflicting.⁴⁵ In addition to recommendations from health care professionals, evidence suggests that parents often consider the opinions of media, friends, and family when making a decision on using complementary and alternative medicine modalities for children/adolescents with ASD.⁴⁶ Such findings can inform physician practices regarding supplement use, and highlight the need to educate parents about the evidence regarding these therapies and potential adverse effects and interactions of such therapies,⁴⁶ along with the need to develop a centralized, evidence-based resource for parents regarding their use.⁴⁵

Omega 3 supplementation has in general shown few adverse effects⁴⁷; still, risks/benefits need to be weighed before use. Some evidence suggests that it may decrease hyperactivity in children with ASD.^31,48 However, further research, particularly controlled trials with large sample sizes, are needed for a definitive determination of efficacy.^31,48 A meta-analysis that included 27 RCTs assessing the efficacy of dietary interventions for various ASD symptoms found that omega 3 supplementation was more effective than placebo, but compared with placebo, the effect size was small.⁴⁹ A RCT of 73 children with ASD in New Zealand found that omega 3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids may benefit some core symptoms of ASD; the authors suggested that further research is needed to conclusively establish efficacy.⁵⁰

Continue to: A need for advocacy and research..

 

 

A need for advocacy and research

Physicians who treat children with ASD can not only make appropriate referrals and educate parents, but also educate their patients’ schools and advocate for their patients to get the level of services they need.^23,28

A recent study in the United States found that behavior therapy and speech-language therapy were used less often in the treatment of children with ASD in rural areas compared with those in metro areas.⁵ This suggests that in addition to increasing parents’ awareness and use of ASD services and providing referrals where appropriate, physicians are in a unique position to advocate for public health policies to improve access, coverage, and training for the provision of such services in rural areas.

There is need for ongoing research to further examine the efficacy and nuances of effects of various treatment interventions for ASD, especially long-term studies with larger sample sizes.^11,51 Additionally, research is warranted to better understand the underlying genetic and neurobiological mechanisms of ASD, which would help guide the development of biomarkers,⁵² innovative treatments, and disease-modifying agents for ASD.^7,22 Exploring the effects of potential alliances or joint action between biological and psychosocial interventions for ASD is also an area that needs further research.⁵¹

Bottom Line

A combination of treatment modalities (such as speech-language therapy, social skills training, behavior therapy/other psychotherapy, and occupational therapy for sensory sensitivities) is generally needed to improve the long-term outcomes of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In addition to the importance of early intervention, the intensity and duration of nonpharmacologic treatments are vital to improving outcomes in ASD.

SECOND OF 2 PARTS

Evidence supports the crucial role of early intervention and nonpharmacologic approaches

A large percentage of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) experience persisting significant social deficits in adulthood,¹ which often leads to isolation, depressive symptoms, and poor occupational and relationship functioning.^2,3 Childhood is a vital time for making the most significant and lasting changes that can improve functioning of individuals with ASD. Psychiatrists and other physicians who treat children are in a key role to influence outcomes of children at risk for or diagnosed with ASD.

This article provides updates on various aspects of ASD diagnosis and treatment (based on available evidence up to March 2020). Part 1 (Current Psychiatry, March 2022) focused on early detection and diagnosis. Here in Part 2, I describe an overview of treatment strategies. Given the vast nature of the topic and the abundance of research that has emerged in the field of ASD over the last several years,⁴ providing an exhaustive review of each of the aspects discussed here is not within the scope of this article.

A comprehensive approach is essential

Multiple treatment modalities have been recommended for ASD.⁵ It is essential to address all aspects of ASD through cognitive, developmental, social-communication, sensory-motor, and behavioral interventions. Nonpharmacologic interventions are crucial in improving long-term outcomes of children with ASD.⁶

Nonpharmacologic treatments

Nonpharmacologic interventions commonly utilized for children with ASD include behavioral therapies, other psychological therapies, speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, educational interventions, parent coaching/training, developmental social interventions, and other modalities of therapy that are delivered in school, home, and clinic settings.^5,7

A recent study examining ASD treatment trends via caregivers’ reports (N = 5,122) from the SPARK (Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge) cohort in the United States reported that 80% of children received speech-language therapy or occupational therapy; 52% got both.⁵ The study revealed that approximately one-quarter utilized 3 therapies simultaneously; two-thirds had utilized 3 or more therapies in the previous year.⁵

Interventions for children with ASD need to be individualized.^1,8 Evidence-based behavioral interventions for ASD fall into 2 broad categories: Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), and Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NDBI). Traditionally, ABA has been a key model, guiding treatment for enhancing social-communicating skills and lowering maladaptive behaviors in ASD.⁹ ABA follows a structured and prescribed format,^10,11 and has been shown to be efficacious.^1,7 More recently, NDBI, in which interventions are “embedded” in the natural environment of the young child and more actively incorporate a developmental perspective, has been shown to be beneficial in improving and generalizing social-communication skills in young children with ASD.^7,11

Early Start Denver Model (ESDM) is an intensive, naturalistic behavioral intervention⁴ that has been shown to be efficacious for enhancing communication and adaptive behavior in children with ASD.^7,8,12 A multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Rogers et al¹² that examined the efficacy of ESDM in 118 children (age 14 to 24 months) with ASD found the treatment was beneficial and superior compared with a “community intervention” group, in regards to language ability measured in time by group analyses.The ESDM intervention in this study involved weekly parent coaching for 3 months, along with 24 months of 15 hours/week of one-on-one treatment provided by therapy professionals.¹²

Reciprocal imitation training (RIT) is another naturalistic intervention that has shown benefit in training children with ASD in imitation skills during play.¹³ Studies have found that both RIT and ESDM can be parent-implemented, after parents receive training.^13,14

Parent-mediated, parent-implemented interventions may have a role in improving outcomes in childhood ASD,^7,15 particularly “better generalization and maintenance of skills than therapist-implemented intervention” for lowering challenging behaviors and enhancing verbal and nonverbal communication.¹⁶

Various social skills interventions have also been found effective for children with ASD.¹ Such interventions are often provided in the school setting.⁷ Coordination with the child’s school to discuss and advocating for adequate and suitable interventions, educational services, and placement is an essential aspect of ASD treatment.⁷

Two other school-based, comprehensive treatment model interventions—Learning Experiences and Alternative Programs for Preschoolers and their Parents (LEAP), and TEACCH—have some evidence of leading to improvement in children with ASD.^7,17

Some studies have found that music therapy may have high efficacy for children with ASD, even with smaller length and intensity of treatment, particularly in improving social interaction, engagement with parents, joint attention, and communication.^3,18 Further research is needed to conclusively establish the efficacy of music therapy for ASD in children and adolescents.

A few studies have assessed the long-term outcomes of interventions for ASD; however, more research is needed.¹⁹ Pickles et al¹⁹ conducted a follow-up to determine the long-term effects of the Preschool Autism Communication Trial (PACT), an RCT of parent-mediated social communication therapy for children age 2 to 4 with ASD. The children’s average age at follow-up was 10 years. The authors found a significant long-term decrease in ASD symptoms and enhancement of social communication with parents (N = 152).¹⁹

Technology-based interventions, including games and robotics, have been investigated in recent years, for treatment of children with ASD (eg, for improving social skills).²⁰

Research suggests that the intensity (number of hours) and duration of nonpharmacologic treatments for ASD is critical to improving outcomes (Box^{1,3,5,7,10,16}).

Box

Continue to: Pharmacotherapy...

Pharmacotherapy

Medications cannot resolve core features of ASD.²¹ However, certain medications may help address associated comorbidities, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, or others, when these conditions have not responded to nonpharmacologic interventions.^7,22 Common symptoms that are often treated with pharmacotherapy include aggression, irritability, hyperactivity, attentional difficulties, tics, self-injurious behavior, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and mood dysregulation/lability.²³ Generally speaking, medications might be considered if symptoms are severe and markedly impair functioning. For mild to moderate conditions, psychotherapy and other nonpharmacologic interventions are generally considered first-line. Since none of the medications described below are specific to ASD and psychiatrists generally receive training in prescribing them for other indications, a comprehensive review of their risks and benefits is beyond the scope of this article. No psychotropic medications are known to have robust evidence for safety in preschool children with ASD, and thus are best avoided.

Antipsychotics. Risperidone (for age 5 and older) and aripiprazole (age 6 to 17) are the only medications FDA-approved for use in children and adolescents with ASD, specifically for irritability associated with ASD.^21,24 These 2 second-generation antipsychotics may also assist in lowering aggression in patients with ASD.²⁴ First-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol have been shown to be effective for irritability and aggression in ASD, but the risk of significant adverse effects such as dyskinesias and extrapyramidal symptoms limit their use.²⁴ Two studies (a double-blind study and an open-label extension of that study) in children and adolescents with ASD found that risperidone was more effective and better tolerated than haloperidol in behavioral measures, impulsivity, and even in the social domain.^25,26 In addition to other adverse effects and risks, increased prolactin secondary to risperidone use requires close monitoring and caution.^24-26 As is the case with the use of other psychotropic medications in children and adolescents, those with ASD who receive antipsychotics should also be periodically reassessed to determine the need for continued use of these medications.²⁷ A multicenter relapse prevention RCT found no statistically significant difference in the time to relapse between aripiprazole and placebo.²⁷ Metabolic syndrome, cardiac risks, and other risks need to be considered before prescribing an antipsychotic.²⁸ Given their serious adverse effects profile, use should be considered only when there is severe impairment or risk of injury, after carefully weighing risks/benefits.

Medications for attentional difficulties. A multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the use of extended-release guanfacine in children with ASD (N = 62) found the rate of positive response on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement scale was 50% for guanfacine vs 9.4% for placebo.²⁹ Clinicians need to monitor for adverse effects of guanfacine, such as fatigue, drowsiness, lightheadedness, lowering of blood pressure and heart rate, and other effects.²⁹ A randomized, double-blind trial of 97 children and adolescents with ASD and ADHD found that atomoxetine had moderate benefit for ADHD symptoms.³⁰ The study reported no serious adverse effects.³⁰ However, it is especially important to monitor for hepatic and cardiac adverse effects (in addition to monitoring for risk of increase in suicidal thoughts/behavior, as in the case of antidepressants) when using atomoxetine, in addition to other side effects and risks. Some evidence suggests that methylphenidate may be effective for attentional difficulties in children and adolescents with ASD²¹ but may pose a higher risk of adverse effects in this population compared with neurotypical patients.³¹

Antidepressants. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are sometimes used to reduce obsessive-compulsive symptoms, repetitive behavior, or depressive symptoms in children with ASD, but are not FDA-approved for children or adolescents with ASD. In general, there is inadequate evidence to support the use of SSRIs for ASD in children.^31-34 In addition, children with ASD may be at a greater risk of adverse effects from SSRIs.^32,34 Despite this, SSRIs are the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medications in children with ASD.³²

An RCT examining the efficacy of fluoxetine in 158 children and adolescents with ASD found no significant difference in Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score after 14 weeks of treatment; activation was a common adverse effect.³⁵ A 2005 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 45 children/adolescents with ASD found that low-dose liquid fluoxetine was more effective than placebo for reducing repetitive behaviors in this population.³⁶ Larger studies are warranted to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine (and of SSRIs in general, particularly in the long term) for children and adolescents with ASD.³⁶ A 2009 randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 149 children with ASD revealed no significant difference between citalopram and placebo as measured by Clinical Global Impressions scale or CY-BOCS scores, and noted a significantly elevated likelihood of adverse effects.³⁷

Other antidepressants. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any other antidepressants in children and adolescents with ASD. A few studies^38,39 have examined the use of venlafaxine in children with ASD; however, further research and controlled studies with large sample sizes are required to conclusively establish its benefits. There is a dearth of evidence examining the use of the tetracyclic antidepressant mirtazapine, or other classes of medications such as tricyclic antidepressants or mood stabilizers, in children with ASD; only a few small studies have assessed the efficacy and adverse effects of these medications for such patients.³¹

Polypharmacy. Although there is no evidence to support polypharmacy in children and adolescents with ASD, the practice appears to be rampant in these patients.^28,40 A 2013 retrospective, observational study of psychotropic medication use in children with ASD (N = 33,565) found that 64% were prescribed psychotropic medications, and 35% exhibited evidence of polypharmacy.⁴⁰ In this study, the total duration of polypharmacy averaged 525 days.⁴⁰ When addressing polypharmacy, systematic deprescribing or simplification of the psychotropic medication regimen may be needed,²⁸ while taking into account the patient’s complete clinical situation, including (but not limited to) tolerability of the medication regimen, presence or absence of current stressors, presence or absence of adequate supports, use of nonpharmacologic treatments where appropriate, and other factors.

More studies assessing the efficacy and safety of psychotropic medications for children and adolescents with ASD are needed,³² especially studies that evaluate the effects of long-term use, because evidence for pharmacologic treatments for children with ASD is mixed and insufficient.³³ There is also a need for evidence-based standards for prescribing psychotropic medications in children and adolescents with ASD.

Psychotropic medications, if used in ASD, should be used only in conjunction with other evidence-based treatment modalities, and not as monotherapy.²¹ Children and adolescents with ASD may be particularly susceptible to side effects or adverse effects of certain psychotropic medications.³¹ When considering medications, carefully weigh the risks and benefits.^7,21,24,28 Starting low and going slow is generally the preferred strategy.^31,32 As always, when recommending medications, discuss in detail with parents the potential side effects, benefits, risks, interactions, and alternatives.

Other agents. Several double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have evaluated using melatonin for sleep difficulties in children and adolescents with ASD.⁴¹ A randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week trial that assessed 160 children with ASD and insomnia found that melatonin plus cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) was superior in efficacy to melatonin alone, CBT alone, or placebo.⁴¹

The evidence regarding oxytocin use for children with ASD is mixed.³¹ Some small studies have associated improvement in the social domain with its use. Guastella et al⁴² conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oxytocin nasal spray for 16 participants (age 12 to 19) with ASD, and found oxytocin enhanced emotional identification. Gordon et al⁴³ conducted a functional MRI study of brain activity with oxytocin use in children with high-functioning ASD (N = 17). They found that oxytocin may augment “salience and hedonic evaluations of socially meaningful stimuli in children with ASD” and thus help social attunement. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of oxytocin on social behavior.

Complementary and alternative medicine. Although there is limited and inconclusive evidence about the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children and adolescents with ASD, these therapies continue to be commonly used.^44-46 A recent survey of parents (N = 211) of children with ASD from academic ASD outpatient clinics in Germany found that 46% reported their child was using or had used some type of complementary and alternative medicine.⁴⁴ There is inadequate evidence to support the use of a gluten-free, casein-free diet for children/adolescents with ASD.⁴⁶ A recent cross-sectional study assessing supplement use in 210 children with ASD in Canada found that 75% used supplements, such as multivitamins (77.8%), vitamin D (44.9%), omega 3 (42.5%), probiotics (36.5%), and magnesium (28.1%), despite insufficient evidence to support their safety or efficacy for children with ASD.⁴⁷ Importantly, 33.5% of parents in this study reported that they did not inform the physician about all their child’s supplements.⁴⁷ Some of the reasons the parents in this study provided for not disclosing information about supplements to their physicians were “physician lack of knowledge,” “no benefit,” “too time-consuming,” and “scared of judgment.”⁴⁷ Semi-structured interviews of parents of 21 children with ASD in Australia revealed that parents found information on complementary and alternative medicine and therapies complex and often conflicting.⁴⁵ In addition to recommendations from health care professionals, evidence suggests that parents often consider the opinions of media, friends, and family when making a decision on using complementary and alternative medicine modalities for children/adolescents with ASD.⁴⁶ Such findings can inform physician practices regarding supplement use, and highlight the need to educate parents about the evidence regarding these therapies and potential adverse effects and interactions of such therapies,⁴⁶ along with the need to develop a centralized, evidence-based resource for parents regarding their use.⁴⁵

Omega 3 supplementation has in general shown few adverse effects⁴⁷; still, risks/benefits need to be weighed before use. Some evidence suggests that it may decrease hyperactivity in children with ASD.^31,48 However, further research, particularly controlled trials with large sample sizes, are needed for a definitive determination of efficacy.^31,48 A meta-analysis that included 27 RCTs assessing the efficacy of dietary interventions for various ASD symptoms found that omega 3 supplementation was more effective than placebo, but compared with placebo, the effect size was small.⁴⁹ A RCT of 73 children with ASD in New Zealand found that omega 3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids may benefit some core symptoms of ASD; the authors suggested that further research is needed to conclusively establish efficacy.⁵⁰

Continue to: A need for advocacy and research..

 

 

A need for advocacy and research

Physicians who treat children with ASD can not only make appropriate referrals and educate parents, but also educate their patients’ schools and advocate for their patients to get the level of services they need.^23,28

A recent study in the United States found that behavior therapy and speech-language therapy were used less often in the treatment of children with ASD in rural areas compared with those in metro areas.⁵ This suggests that in addition to increasing parents’ awareness and use of ASD services and providing referrals where appropriate, physicians are in a unique position to advocate for public health policies to improve access, coverage, and training for the provision of such services in rural areas.

There is need for ongoing research to further examine the efficacy and nuances of effects of various treatment interventions for ASD, especially long-term studies with larger sample sizes.^11,51 Additionally, research is warranted to better understand the underlying genetic and neurobiological mechanisms of ASD, which would help guide the development of biomarkers,⁵² innovative treatments, and disease-modifying agents for ASD.^7,22 Exploring the effects of potential alliances or joint action between biological and psychosocial interventions for ASD is also an area that needs further research.⁵¹

Bottom Line

A combination of treatment modalities (such as speech-language therapy, social skills training, behavior therapy/other psychotherapy, and occupational therapy for sensory sensitivities) is generally needed to improve the long-term outcomes of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In addition to the importance of early intervention, the intensity and duration of nonpharmacologic treatments are vital to improving outcomes in ASD.

SECOND OF 2 PARTS

Evidence supports the crucial role of early intervention and nonpharmacologic approaches

A large percentage of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) experience persisting significant social deficits in adulthood,¹ which often leads to isolation, depressive symptoms, and poor occupational and relationship functioning.^2,3 Childhood is a vital time for making the most significant and lasting changes that can improve functioning of individuals with ASD. Psychiatrists and other physicians who treat children are in a key role to influence outcomes of children at risk for or diagnosed with ASD.

This article provides updates on various aspects of ASD diagnosis and treatment (based on available evidence up to March 2020). Part 1 (Current Psychiatry, March 2022) focused on early detection and diagnosis. Here in Part 2, I describe an overview of treatment strategies. Given the vast nature of the topic and the abundance of research that has emerged in the field of ASD over the last several years,⁴ providing an exhaustive review of each of the aspects discussed here is not within the scope of this article.

A comprehensive approach is essential

Multiple treatment modalities have been recommended for ASD.⁵ It is essential to address all aspects of ASD through cognitive, developmental, social-communication, sensory-motor, and behavioral interventions. Nonpharmacologic interventions are crucial in improving long-term outcomes of children with ASD.⁶

Nonpharmacologic treatments

Nonpharmacologic interventions commonly utilized for children with ASD include behavioral therapies, other psychological therapies, speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, educational interventions, parent coaching/training, developmental social interventions, and other modalities of therapy that are delivered in school, home, and clinic settings.^5,7

A recent study examining ASD treatment trends via caregivers’ reports (N = 5,122) from the SPARK (Simons Foundation Powering Autism Research for Knowledge) cohort in the United States reported that 80% of children received speech-language therapy or occupational therapy; 52% got both.⁵ The study revealed that approximately one-quarter utilized 3 therapies simultaneously; two-thirds had utilized 3 or more therapies in the previous year.⁵

Interventions for children with ASD need to be individualized.^1,8 Evidence-based behavioral interventions for ASD fall into 2 broad categories: Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), and Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NDBI). Traditionally, ABA has been a key model, guiding treatment for enhancing social-communicating skills and lowering maladaptive behaviors in ASD.⁹ ABA follows a structured and prescribed format,^10,11 and has been shown to be efficacious.^1,7 More recently, NDBI, in which interventions are “embedded” in the natural environment of the young child and more actively incorporate a developmental perspective, has been shown to be beneficial in improving and generalizing social-communication skills in young children with ASD.^7,11

Early Start Denver Model (ESDM) is an intensive, naturalistic behavioral intervention⁴ that has been shown to be efficacious for enhancing communication and adaptive behavior in children with ASD.^7,8,12 A multisite randomized controlled trial (RCT) by Rogers et al¹² that examined the efficacy of ESDM in 118 children (age 14 to 24 months) with ASD found the treatment was beneficial and superior compared with a “community intervention” group, in regards to language ability measured in time by group analyses.The ESDM intervention in this study involved weekly parent coaching for 3 months, along with 24 months of 15 hours/week of one-on-one treatment provided by therapy professionals.¹²

Reciprocal imitation training (RIT) is another naturalistic intervention that has shown benefit in training children with ASD in imitation skills during play.¹³ Studies have found that both RIT and ESDM can be parent-implemented, after parents receive training.^13,14

Parent-mediated, parent-implemented interventions may have a role in improving outcomes in childhood ASD,^7,15 particularly “better generalization and maintenance of skills than therapist-implemented intervention” for lowering challenging behaviors and enhancing verbal and nonverbal communication.¹⁶

Various social skills interventions have also been found effective for children with ASD.¹ Such interventions are often provided in the school setting.⁷ Coordination with the child’s school to discuss and advocating for adequate and suitable interventions, educational services, and placement is an essential aspect of ASD treatment.⁷

Two other school-based, comprehensive treatment model interventions—Learning Experiences and Alternative Programs for Preschoolers and their Parents (LEAP), and TEACCH—have some evidence of leading to improvement in children with ASD.^7,17

Some studies have found that music therapy may have high efficacy for children with ASD, even with smaller length and intensity of treatment, particularly in improving social interaction, engagement with parents, joint attention, and communication.^3,18 Further research is needed to conclusively establish the efficacy of music therapy for ASD in children and adolescents.

A few studies have assessed the long-term outcomes of interventions for ASD; however, more research is needed.¹⁹ Pickles et al¹⁹ conducted a follow-up to determine the long-term effects of the Preschool Autism Communication Trial (PACT), an RCT of parent-mediated social communication therapy for children age 2 to 4 with ASD. The children’s average age at follow-up was 10 years. The authors found a significant long-term decrease in ASD symptoms and enhancement of social communication with parents (N = 152).¹⁹

Technology-based interventions, including games and robotics, have been investigated in recent years, for treatment of children with ASD (eg, for improving social skills).²⁰

Research suggests that the intensity (number of hours) and duration of nonpharmacologic treatments for ASD is critical to improving outcomes (Box^{1,3,5,7,10,16}).

Box

Continue to: Pharmacotherapy...

Pharmacotherapy

Medications cannot resolve core features of ASD.²¹ However, certain medications may help address associated comorbidities, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, or others, when these conditions have not responded to nonpharmacologic interventions.^7,22 Common symptoms that are often treated with pharmacotherapy include aggression, irritability, hyperactivity, attentional difficulties, tics, self-injurious behavior, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, and mood dysregulation/lability.²³ Generally speaking, medications might be considered if symptoms are severe and markedly impair functioning. For mild to moderate conditions, psychotherapy and other nonpharmacologic interventions are generally considered first-line. Since none of the medications described below are specific to ASD and psychiatrists generally receive training in prescribing them for other indications, a comprehensive review of their risks and benefits is beyond the scope of this article. No psychotropic medications are known to have robust evidence for safety in preschool children with ASD, and thus are best avoided.

Antipsychotics. Risperidone (for age 5 and older) and aripiprazole (age 6 to 17) are the only medications FDA-approved for use in children and adolescents with ASD, specifically for irritability associated with ASD.^21,24 These 2 second-generation antipsychotics may also assist in lowering aggression in patients with ASD.²⁴ First-generation antipsychotics such as haloperidol have been shown to be effective for irritability and aggression in ASD, but the risk of significant adverse effects such as dyskinesias and extrapyramidal symptoms limit their use.²⁴ Two studies (a double-blind study and an open-label extension of that study) in children and adolescents with ASD found that risperidone was more effective and better tolerated than haloperidol in behavioral measures, impulsivity, and even in the social domain.^25,26 In addition to other adverse effects and risks, increased prolactin secondary to risperidone use requires close monitoring and caution.^24-26 As is the case with the use of other psychotropic medications in children and adolescents, those with ASD who receive antipsychotics should also be periodically reassessed to determine the need for continued use of these medications.²⁷ A multicenter relapse prevention RCT found no statistically significant difference in the time to relapse between aripiprazole and placebo.²⁷ Metabolic syndrome, cardiac risks, and other risks need to be considered before prescribing an antipsychotic.²⁸ Given their serious adverse effects profile, use should be considered only when there is severe impairment or risk of injury, after carefully weighing risks/benefits.

Medications for attentional difficulties. A multisite, randomized, placebo-controlled trial evaluating the use of extended-release guanfacine in children with ASD (N = 62) found the rate of positive response on the Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement scale was 50% for guanfacine vs 9.4% for placebo.²⁹ Clinicians need to monitor for adverse effects of guanfacine, such as fatigue, drowsiness, lightheadedness, lowering of blood pressure and heart rate, and other effects.²⁹ A randomized, double-blind trial of 97 children and adolescents with ASD and ADHD found that atomoxetine had moderate benefit for ADHD symptoms.³⁰ The study reported no serious adverse effects.³⁰ However, it is especially important to monitor for hepatic and cardiac adverse effects (in addition to monitoring for risk of increase in suicidal thoughts/behavior, as in the case of antidepressants) when using atomoxetine, in addition to other side effects and risks. Some evidence suggests that methylphenidate may be effective for attentional difficulties in children and adolescents with ASD²¹ but may pose a higher risk of adverse effects in this population compared with neurotypical patients.³¹

Antidepressants. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are sometimes used to reduce obsessive-compulsive symptoms, repetitive behavior, or depressive symptoms in children with ASD, but are not FDA-approved for children or adolescents with ASD. In general, there is inadequate evidence to support the use of SSRIs for ASD in children.^31-34 In addition, children with ASD may be at a greater risk of adverse effects from SSRIs.^32,34 Despite this, SSRIs are the most commonly prescribed psychotropic medications in children with ASD.³²

An RCT examining the efficacy of fluoxetine in 158 children and adolescents with ASD found no significant difference in Children’s Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (CY-BOCS) score after 14 weeks of treatment; activation was a common adverse effect.³⁵ A 2005 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 45 children/adolescents with ASD found that low-dose liquid fluoxetine was more effective than placebo for reducing repetitive behaviors in this population.³⁶ Larger studies are warranted to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of fluoxetine (and of SSRIs in general, particularly in the long term) for children and adolescents with ASD.³⁶ A 2009 randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 149 children with ASD revealed no significant difference between citalopram and placebo as measured by Clinical Global Impressions scale or CY-BOCS scores, and noted a significantly elevated likelihood of adverse effects.³⁷

Other antidepressants. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any other antidepressants in children and adolescents with ASD. A few studies^38,39 have examined the use of venlafaxine in children with ASD; however, further research and controlled studies with large sample sizes are required to conclusively establish its benefits. There is a dearth of evidence examining the use of the tetracyclic antidepressant mirtazapine, or other classes of medications such as tricyclic antidepressants or mood stabilizers, in children with ASD; only a few small studies have assessed the efficacy and adverse effects of these medications for such patients.³¹

Polypharmacy. Although there is no evidence to support polypharmacy in children and adolescents with ASD, the practice appears to be rampant in these patients.^28,40 A 2013 retrospective, observational study of psychotropic medication use in children with ASD (N = 33,565) found that 64% were prescribed psychotropic medications, and 35% exhibited evidence of polypharmacy.⁴⁰ In this study, the total duration of polypharmacy averaged 525 days.⁴⁰ When addressing polypharmacy, systematic deprescribing or simplification of the psychotropic medication regimen may be needed,²⁸ while taking into account the patient’s complete clinical situation, including (but not limited to) tolerability of the medication regimen, presence or absence of current stressors, presence or absence of adequate supports, use of nonpharmacologic treatments where appropriate, and other factors.

More studies assessing the efficacy and safety of psychotropic medications for children and adolescents with ASD are needed,³² especially studies that evaluate the effects of long-term use, because evidence for pharmacologic treatments for children with ASD is mixed and insufficient.³³ There is also a need for evidence-based standards for prescribing psychotropic medications in children and adolescents with ASD.

Psychotropic medications, if used in ASD, should be used only in conjunction with other evidence-based treatment modalities, and not as monotherapy.²¹ Children and adolescents with ASD may be particularly susceptible to side effects or adverse effects of certain psychotropic medications.³¹ When considering medications, carefully weigh the risks and benefits.^7,21,24,28 Starting low and going slow is generally the preferred strategy.^31,32 As always, when recommending medications, discuss in detail with parents the potential side effects, benefits, risks, interactions, and alternatives.

Other agents. Several double-blind, placebo-controlled trials have evaluated using melatonin for sleep difficulties in children and adolescents with ASD.⁴¹ A randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week trial that assessed 160 children with ASD and insomnia found that melatonin plus cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) was superior in efficacy to melatonin alone, CBT alone, or placebo.⁴¹

The evidence regarding oxytocin use for children with ASD is mixed.³¹ Some small studies have associated improvement in the social domain with its use. Guastella et al⁴² conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of oxytocin nasal spray for 16 participants (age 12 to 19) with ASD, and found oxytocin enhanced emotional identification. Gordon et al⁴³ conducted a functional MRI study of brain activity with oxytocin use in children with high-functioning ASD (N = 17). They found that oxytocin may augment “salience and hedonic evaluations of socially meaningful stimuli in children with ASD” and thus help social attunement. Further research is needed to evaluate the impact of oxytocin on social behavior.

Complementary and alternative medicine. Although there is limited and inconclusive evidence about the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children and adolescents with ASD, these therapies continue to be commonly used.^44-46 A recent survey of parents (N = 211) of children with ASD from academic ASD outpatient clinics in Germany found that 46% reported their child was using or had used some type of complementary and alternative medicine.⁴⁴ There is inadequate evidence to support the use of a gluten-free, casein-free diet for children/adolescents with ASD.⁴⁶ A recent cross-sectional study assessing supplement use in 210 children with ASD in Canada found that 75% used supplements, such as multivitamins (77.8%), vitamin D (44.9%), omega 3 (42.5%), probiotics (36.5%), and magnesium (28.1%), despite insufficient evidence to support their safety or efficacy for children with ASD.⁴⁷ Importantly, 33.5% of parents in this study reported that they did not inform the physician about all their child’s supplements.⁴⁷ Some of the reasons the parents in this study provided for not disclosing information about supplements to their physicians were “physician lack of knowledge,” “no benefit,” “too time-consuming,” and “scared of judgment.”⁴⁷ Semi-structured interviews of parents of 21 children with ASD in Australia revealed that parents found information on complementary and alternative medicine and therapies complex and often conflicting.⁴⁵ In addition to recommendations from health care professionals, evidence suggests that parents often consider the opinions of media, friends, and family when making a decision on using complementary and alternative medicine modalities for children/adolescents with ASD.⁴⁶ Such findings can inform physician practices regarding supplement use, and highlight the need to educate parents about the evidence regarding these therapies and potential adverse effects and interactions of such therapies,⁴⁶ along with the need to develop a centralized, evidence-based resource for parents regarding their use.⁴⁵

Omega 3 supplementation has in general shown few adverse effects⁴⁷; still, risks/benefits need to be weighed before use. Some evidence suggests that it may decrease hyperactivity in children with ASD.^31,48 However, further research, particularly controlled trials with large sample sizes, are needed for a definitive determination of efficacy.^31,48 A meta-analysis that included 27 RCTs assessing the efficacy of dietary interventions for various ASD symptoms found that omega 3 supplementation was more effective than placebo, but compared with placebo, the effect size was small.⁴⁹ A RCT of 73 children with ASD in New Zealand found that omega 3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids may benefit some core symptoms of ASD; the authors suggested that further research is needed to conclusively establish efficacy.⁵⁰

Continue to: A need for advocacy and research..

 

 

A need for advocacy and research

Physicians who treat children with ASD can not only make appropriate referrals and educate parents, but also educate their patients’ schools and advocate for their patients to get the level of services they need.^23,28

A recent study in the United States found that behavior therapy and speech-language therapy were used less often in the treatment of children with ASD in rural areas compared with those in metro areas.⁵ This suggests that in addition to increasing parents’ awareness and use of ASD services and providing referrals where appropriate, physicians are in a unique position to advocate for public health policies to improve access, coverage, and training for the provision of such services in rural areas.

There is need for ongoing research to further examine the efficacy and nuances of effects of various treatment interventions for ASD, especially long-term studies with larger sample sizes.^11,51 Additionally, research is warranted to better understand the underlying genetic and neurobiological mechanisms of ASD, which would help guide the development of biomarkers,⁵² innovative treatments, and disease-modifying agents for ASD.^7,22 Exploring the effects of potential alliances or joint action between biological and psychosocial interventions for ASD is also an area that needs further research.⁵¹

Bottom Line

A combination of treatment modalities (such as speech-language therapy, social skills training, behavior therapy/other psychotherapy, and occupational therapy for sensory sensitivities) is generally needed to improve the long-term outcomes of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In addition to the importance of early intervention, the intensity and duration of nonpharmacologic treatments are vital to improving outcomes in ASD.