Conflict Of Interest, Primitive Defenses, And Celebrity Death

I don't think there is any good way to say it.  Minnesota's greatest celebrity died recently.  I am not going to use his name or picture on this blog.  It seems fairly obvious that he would not want that.  There was the expected and understandable outpouring of emotion from his tens of millions of fans.  And then he became a projective test for anyone who wanted to sell their idea or opinion or get exposure in the press.  Some of those ideas and exposures included:

1.  The opioid epidemic - he is another statistic.
2.  Opioids are bad drugs and they can kill you.
3.  We could have saved him if he went into treatment.
4.  We could have saved him with Suboxone.
5.  Public scorns buprenorphine (Suboxone) - a medication that could have saved him.
6.  We could have saved him with a treatment intervention.
7.  His problem wasn't addiction at all it was chronic pain.
8.  We could have saved him by treating his chronic pain.
9.  The doctors prescribing these medications need to be disciplined.
10.  The people designated to save him - should have saved him.
11.  His death was "pathetic".
12.  That publicity rights legislation that exceeds copyright protection is necessary for the heirs.

None of these ideas are my ideas and I am sure that by the time you read it - this list is incomplete and outdated.  This is what I have heard or read about his death since it happened.  Some of the dynamics are familiar to me.  The gossip columnists and sites trying to show that they have special contacts and insight and therefore may be more important than other gossip sites.  The insiders proclaiming special knowledge that only a person very close to the celebrity could have.  The very human tendency for some to celebrate the death of those with special talents and capabilities that none of the rest of us have.  Death seems like the ultimate revenge of the mediocre and personality disordered - the final verification that a high flying person dies just like the rest of us.  The entire debacle reminds of a sentence I read somewhere (the reference eludes me): "Only a primitive man celebrates the death of his enemy."  How primitive would the man need to be in order to feel elevated by the death of a superstar?  I realize that these more drastic formulations may be rare.  What fuels all of the controversy?  Some may say morbid curiosity.  They are compelled to look at adverse outcomes whether it is a car wreck on the side of the road or a celebrity death under various circumstances.  It still comes around to what one of my psychoanalytic supervisors described as the most primitive underlying and unspoken thought: "Better him than me!"  The first time an analyst told me that I was somewhat taken aback and then over time I noticed that he was right.  I expected to hear this kind of attitude from non-professionals but not from physicians.  It turned out that I could hear that attitude from a broad spectrum of people.

My biases tend to be at the other end of the spectrum.  I see special capabilities as a celebration of what human beings can do.  Whether that is in athletics, entertainment, art, or my co-workers doing the job in a way that nobody else can do it.  Individual talent and unique capabilities are there to be celebrated and not envied.  I discussed this in an earlier post where the concept is that even people who aren't soccer fans can appreciate the greatness of Pele and just by watching him realize that we are all lifted up by that performance.  Envy seems like a marker that we should all use to determine our own sense of self and our own boundaries.    

In today's conflict-of-interest morality analysis anyone wanting to capitalize on the reputation of the celebrity to sell their wares escapes criticism.  The people involved will say that this is the price of celebrity and if you did not want everything that went along with celebrity you should have avoided it.  You are protesting too loudly when your privacy is invaded in real life or after you die.  There is another argument that the fans are entitled to this information.  To me that would depend on who is dispensing it and what was their reason.  There are numerous analyses of this problem from the perspective of defense mechanisms and the study of life satisfaction based on the level of those defenses.  Defense mechanisms may be interesting to psychiatrists and other mental health professionals but I don't think that they have to be brought out for this discussion.  At some point in life everyone needs to take a close look at how they interpret both misfortunes and good fortunes of others.  What does it really mean to them?  What does it indicate about their philosophy of life?  What does it mean about their life satisfaction?  When you do that - I think that most reasonable people stop for accidents because they are there to help.  They are not spectators.  Human consciousness has the unique property of allowing us to imagine good and bad things happening to us without having to see the real thing happening to somebody else.

I hope that at some point the culture can move past the all too predictable sequence of self aggrandizement and the obvious conflict-of-interest that occurs when a celebrity dies.  Human life and human achievement is worth celebrating and just like a single person can make us all better or at least feel better - it doesn't take much to bring us back down.  In order to break out of these predictable patterns, it takes a conscious awareness of better ways to be or exist in life and that includes examining and rejecting reasons for continuing the old patterns.

I will personally remember his shining star and some of the accolades from the top performers in his field.  He was truly one of a kind and his art was uplifting to me.  


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Latest on Ketamine

(R,S)-ketamine

Ketamine has been prominent in the psychiatric literature and conferences for the past decade as a potential agent for both treatment resistant depression and a rapid antidepressant response.  In some communities ketamine infusion clinics are available where patient can go for a weekly infusion to maintain depression either in remission or a partial response.  At a cultural level, besides being a dissociative agent for anesthesia, ketamine is also in the collection of drugs known as club drugs and as such it is abusable.  Ketamine is not among the most commonly abused drugs.  The NSDUH survey puts lifetime abuse at about 1%.  In a practice of addiction psychiatry it is less likely to be used than LSD and much less likely to be used than dextromethorphan.  It may be one of many drugs used by polysubstance users at some point in their usage history.  Ketamine is also classified as a psychedelic drug or a drug that can cause hallucinogenic or dissociative experiences.  From the time their use was popularized there was a belief that these experiences could be potentially beneficial from the standpoint of personal growth and creativity, as an agent to enhance psychotherapy, or in some cases as an agent to treat psychiatric problems like alcoholism and depression.  Ketamine is currently a Schedule III non-narcotic drug on the DEA List of Controlled Substances.  My first professional exposure to the pharmacology of ketamine occurred in basic science courses in medical school in about 1983.  It was taught as part of the pharmacology of anesthesia agents.  It was taught as not being a first line drug at that point because of the side effects of dissociation and anesthesia.  Like most old medications there has been a recent revival of interest for rapid sedation of patients in emergency department settings.  In the linked report it had a more rapid onset of action than the usual agents, but also a significantly higher complication rate.

Alan Schatzberg, MD gave a presentation on ketamine at the University of Wisconsin Annual Update and Advances in Psychiatry in October 2013.  He presented data to show that the effects of intravenous ketamine were acute but not sustained.  Depressed unipolar subjects noticed the antidepressant effects within a few hours and they lasted about one week before returning to baseline depression scores on a standard Hamilton Depression Rating Scale.  In bipolar depression the effects last about 12 days.  He presented the results of an NIMH trial of ketamine in treatment resistant depression.  It was a small multisite trial that compared ketamine (N=47) to midazolam (N=25) as an active placebo.  The primary outcome measure was remission of depressive symptoms at 25 hours and the rates were 63.8% for ketamine versus 28% for midazolam.  Dizziness, blurred vision, nausea/vomiting, headache, and palpitations were the most common side effects acutely and at 24 hours.  There were no episodes of psychosis.  Longer term strategies were presented that might sustain the acute ketamine response including an oral form, repeated infusions, memantine, riluzole, lamotrigine, high dose d-cycloserine, and several new oral agents that were antagonists or partial allosteric modulators of the glutamate receptor, or partial agonist of the NMDA receptor glycine site.  Response to ketamine infusion at 2 hours was shown to be predictive of response and there was a 70% chance of relapse after repeated infusion but this sensitization did not occur at 2 week intervals.  Despite these limitations on therapy there is  Ketamine Advocacy Network that includes a quote about the coming ketamine today tidal wave and a page with this very dim view of psychiatric practice and the intellectual interests of the average or most (?) psychiatrists.  It is not clear to me who writes their pages or who their medical consultants are.

Barry Rittberg, MD gave a presentation at the Minnesota Psychiatric Society in May 2014 and reviewed the science, clinical trial data, and local protocols for ketamine infusions in Minnesota.  The major problems were short term benefit, unknown long term risk,  inability to drive that day,  psychotomimetic effects, and the 3-4 hour time commitment for the infusion.  The protocol discussed involved a 40 minute infusion with monitoring blood pressure, pulse and oxygen saturations every 15 minutes.  Treatments were given 3 days a week for three weeks.  In addition, insurance companies did not cover the treatment (and still don't).  The treatment is not FDA approved and therefore considered experimental by insurance companies.  

The main emphasis of research studies on ketamine and other agents is the potential importance of the glutamatergic system in the treatment of depression.  It also has a purported role in schizophrenia.  There was a good review in an excellent journal Clinical Pharmacokinetics that suggested the (S)-ketamine had a more favorable side effect profile than the racemate.  It was with that backdrop of information that I honed in on this article that popped up on my Facebook feed.  After the first few pages I knew that I was not going to be disappointed.

The authors of a Nature article (1) review the information in the above paragraphs as a rationale for their research and rapidly describe their series of experiments.  The animal research done in this paper is all rodent research to test the potential antidepressant, self-administration, drug discrimination, chronic corticosterone induced anhedonia, and motor coordination effects effects of various glutamatergic compounds.  All of these paradigms and much more are detailed in the supplementary and methods section of the online paper.  Tissue distribution and clearance of ketamine and metabolites was determined in both plasma and brain at 10, 30, 60, and 240 minutes post ketamine administration.

In the first set of experiments, the researchers showed that (R)-ketamine had greater antidepressant potency in three antidepressant predictive tasks - the mouse forced swim test (FST), the novelty-suppressed feeding task (NSF) and the learned helplessness task.  They also showed that this was not due to higher brain levels (R)-ketamine versus (S)-ketamine.  The NMDAR antagonist MK-801 was also shown to not exert the same effects as ketamine, suggesting that the mechanism was more complex than inhibition.  The most interesting part of this paper was the examination of ketamine metabolites and their potency as potential antidepressants.  Ketamine is metabolized by CYP3A and CYP2B6 hepatic enzymes mostly to norketamine, but a number of transformations including dehydrogenation, and hydroxylation to a broad array of metabolites as shown in the authors' graphic below (click on the graphic for a more readable version).

The HNK (hydroxynorketamine) metabolites are the major metabolites found in the plasma and brains of mice after ketamine administration and the plasma of humans.  When greater antidepressant effects were noted in female mice, it was determined that the levels of (2S,2S;2R,6R)-HNK were three times higher in females than males.  In order to confirm that this metabolite was the most potent, a deuterated form of ketamine was synthesized.  The deuteration significantly slowed the metabolism of the parent compound and the antidepressant effects were eliminated largely by blocking the formation of  (2S,2S;2R,6R)-HNK.  The (2R,6R)-HNK derived from (R)-ketamine was subsequently determined to be the most potent metabolite (as highlighted in the above metabolic map).

The authors went on to confirm that (2R,6R)-HNK increased glutamatergic signalling in a number of paradigms.  They also demonstrated that administration led to expected changes in AMPARS (α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid receptors).  Drug discrimination and self-administration tests showed no tendency for self-administration with the (2R,6R)-HNK as opposed to ketamine.  In the same experiments ketamine was self administered and increased amounts were taken.   The (2R,6R)-HNK metabolite also did not cause motor incoordination or increased locomotion like ketamine did.

The implications of this paper are far reaching in terms of possible therapeutic agents.  It clarifies that the molecule involved in treating depression may be a significantly different structure than ketamine.  Second, that structure seems to have none of the side effects of the parent compound in animal models.  This paper also has implications for human research.  A search on HNK in the medical literature shows no evidence that it has ever been administered to humans.  A search on ClinicalTrials.gov shows no current research with the compound.  People are receiving infusions of ketamine for both chronic pain and chronic depression.  The infusions are done in clinics where patients need to monitored closely largely because of the side effects of ketamine.  The research done in this paper suggests that the administration of the active metabolite of ketamine may open the door for a less invasive and time intensive treatment for chronic depression.  I liked the idea that this paper discussed the relevant chemistry and pharmacology - undergraduate and medical school knowledge that is still relevant.  I also liked the idea that it potentially demystifies a hallucinogenic drug.  I have seen the newspaper headlines: "Club drugs to treat your depression."  I doubt that they will be replaced by: "(2R,6R)-HNK to treat your depression" anytime soon.

But the nullification of another urban drug legend is always a positive from my perspective.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA      



References:

1: Zanos P, Moaddel R, Morris PJ, Georgiou P, Fischell J, Elmer GI, Alkondon M, Yuan P, Pribut HJ, Singh NS, Dossou KS, Fang Y, Huang XP, Mayo CL, Wainer IW, Albuquerque EX, Thompson SM, Thomas CJ, Zarate CA Jr, Gould TD. NMDAR inhibition-independent antidepressant actions of ketamine metabolites. Nature. 2016 May 4. doi: 10.1038/nature17998. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID:27144355.

2: Peltoniemi MA, Hagelberg NM, Olkkola KT, Saari TI. Ketamine: A Review of Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics in Anesthesia and Pain Therapy. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016 Mar 30. [Epub ahead of print] Review. PubMed PMID: 27028535.

Supplementary:

1:  The figure labelled Extended Data Figure 1 is from reference number 1 (above) and is used with permission from the Nature Publishing Group - license number 3863110054693 obtained on May 6, 2016.

2:  Shortly after writing this post I came across this reference suggesting the postsynaptic signalling mechanism responsible for the "ketamine" effect.  I have not read the article yet since it is not open access, but if they were really using ketamine to induce the effect it would be more interesting if they compared (2R,6R)-HNK to ketamine and other metabolites in this model.  It could provide confirmatory data on whether (2R,6R)-HNK is in fact the active metabolite.

Harraz MM, Tyagi R, Cortés P, Snyder SH. Antidepressant action of ketamine via mTOR is mediated by inhibition of nitrergic Rheb degradation. Mol Psychiatry. 2016 Mar;21(3):313-9. doi: 10.1038/mp.2015.211. Epub 2016 Jan 19. PubMed PMID: 26782056.

Executive Order: No Psychiatrists On Governor's Task Force On Mental Health

I received an e-mail two days ago from the current President of the Minnesota Psychiatric Society on the formation of a Governor's Task Force On Mental Health.  That e-mail commented that no psychiatrists were considered for the Task Force, but that psychiatrists could apply as concerned citizens and were encouraged to do so.  I have done this in the past and been ignored so I was not eager to repeat that again.

The public mental health system in Minnesota has been seriously mismanaged and ignored for the past 30 years or about as long as I have been a psychiatrist in this state.  During that time, I have witnessed a long string of bureaucrats with no specific experience trying to manage a state hospital system or more likely trying to shut it down.  Those efforts were seriously compromised by some of the same legislators who decided to develop a system of civil commitment for sex offenders because they thought it would be easier to detain them on a dangerousness standard than the usual legal criteria.  Let's forget about the commitment standard that suggests the person should have a treatable illness.  The efforts to shut down the state hospital system were also compromised by the fact that the system really started to backfire when the number of available beds in Minnesota dropped to the lowest number in the US.  At that point there was always a large pool of unstable patients circulating between the emergency department, brief inpatient stays where not much happened, and the street.  During that time significant housing resources for both adults and children with significant psychiatric problems was shut down.

The icing on the cake from the State Legislature was their myopic approach to the problem of the mentally ill being incarcerated.  They "solved" the problem by coming up with a rule that any county jail inmate could be transferred to Anoka Metro Regional Treatment Center (AMRTC) within 48 hours.  AMRTC was supposed to the the remaining flagship public psychiatric hospital for patients with no forensic problems, that is they had not committed a violent crime due to mental illness.  This was a predictable double whammy, sending violent inmates to a hospital setting and short circuiting long waiting lists of patients waiting to get to AMRTC as a result of commitments at community hospitals.  This has led to a record number of assaults on staff working at AMRTC, at a time when nurse manager staff critical in managing aggression had been downsized.

Community mental health centers (CMHCS) have certainly not fared any better.  At some point the decision was made that they could be treated like managed care clinics.  In other words they would be funded by staff "productivity" and practice medication rather than psychotherapy focused services.  Even then, reimbursement from traditional funding sources was so poor or so entangled in unnecessary paperwork that the funding was inadequate to keep the doors open.  Some CMHCs have just gone out of business and advised their patients to see primary care physicians or distant mental health clinics.  People generally do not drive long distances to be seen, at least not for very long.  It is hard enough to drive across town, much less several hours for an appointment.

Looking at the goals of the Mental Health Task force and who the Governor wants on it - it is clear that this is a serious committee with a serious mandate to develop a continuum of care and the supporting infrastructure with funding sources.  The political and managerial members of the Task Force are carefully specified.   Why then would representatives of the same failed agencies from the past be appointed to serve on it?  Why are there no psychiatrists or psychiatric nurses - linchpins of what can be loosely described as this system of care?  Why are there no psychiatric social workers - the people with the most experience in dealing with the glaring lack of resources?  These are the people who know what the problems are, how they can be solved, and what they have to put up with every time a state politician or bureaucrat makes another bad decision.  And yet none of these groups are specified Task Force members.

The implicit question is how many times these state government driven processes need to fail before there is a rational process?  One of the associated questions I dealt with as the President of the Minnesota Psychiatric Society is why professional organizations in the state always seem to fall silent about these processes every time they occur.  There are psychiatrists employed in these systems that may not want to hear any criticism from their professional organization about the overall processes, and that is something I have never really understood.  There are certainly plenty of professionals who avoid contact with these systems entirely.  It is one thing to have to try to function very day at work in an environment where doing the work is impossible due to financial and bureaucratic constraints.  It should be fairly obvious that is not a personal criticism of any employee in that system.   It is well past the time when the professional organizations represented in these systems get involved and tell whatever Task Force coming down the pike what is necessary to provide quality care to people with severe mental illnesses.

Until that time comes, I encourage every psychiatrist in the state to use my standard answer about why the mentally ill in this state get rationed and inadequate treatment:

"This decisions in this state are made by people who know considerably less about it than I do."

That is just the way we do business in the USA right now.  At some point the American people were sold the idea that managers with no particular skill other than declaring themselves to be managers were what we needed to solve problems.  Being a politician or a manager seems to trump just about every technical skill, but in this case the resulting problems have been more than a little glaring.  Knowing how to treat the severe mental illnesses that are seen in state hospitals and CMHCs requires more than an MBA or JD.  You have to be well trained and know what you are doing.

This Task Force seems to be a collection of what has come to be called stakeholders and it is more than a little ironic that this group never seems to include the people who show up each day to do the work. 


George Dawson, MD, DLFAPA


Reference:

Here is the original Executive Order - dated April 27, 2016.


Supplementary 1:

A rich source of political rhetoric that is frequently used against professionals by managers is: "Let's see you come up with a solution."  They never really step aside and let the professionals manage.  They are just trying to shut them up.  Well here are a few ideas for starters that I will put up right now against any Task Force product.  And I am the only stakeholder writing this blog:

Minnesota State Hospitals Need To Be Managed to Minimize Aggression - link

Minnesota's Mental Health Crisis - The Logical Conclusion of 30 Years Of Rationing - link

Minnesota Continues A Flawed Approach To Serious Mental Illness And Aggression - link

Public Sector Mental Health Continues to Be Squeezed Out Of Business - link







 

The Medical Cannabis Smorgasbord In Minnesota

I took in a CME course on Medical Cannabis: Clinical Applications and Evidence for Health Professionals on April 28, 2016 8 AM - 5 PM.  It was done as a collaboration between the University of Minnesota Center for Spirituality and Healing and The Minnesota Department of Health Office of Medical Cannabis.  Minnesota was the 22nd state to legislate a version of medical cannabis and this conference showcased the Minnesota version, the state and federal regulatory landscape, the available evidence to support the use of cannabis in certain conditions.  The politics of medical cannabis was also on display with viewpoints by some of the experts on the panel that represented scientific data, but also complementary approaches that had very little to do with science.

The Minnesota approach is an interesting one, because it may prove to provide the only cannabis products that offer a relatively standardized dose of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), cannabidiol (CBD) or some combination.  In Minnesota there are two companies that are the exclusive providers of non-smokable cannabis products that are extracted from the entire plant - Leafline Labs and Minnesota Medical Solutions.  The extraction process is entirely carbon dioxide based and no hydrocarbons are used.  There are strict quality control measures.  There are no smokable or combustible cannabis products in the state.  According the statute, medical cannabis is available only as "oil, pill, vapor (oil or liquid but not dried leaves or plant form) or any other form approved by the commissioner excluding smoking".  These two companies supply state operated pharmacies that dispense only the cannabis products.  In order for a person to access these products they need to register with the state, pay a $200 annual fee, be certified as having an eligible condition by a physician who recommends rather than prescribes the product.  The patient discusses the actual product to be used with the pharmacist and pays for the product.  There are no insurance companies or state programs that pay for the cannabis.

The speakers at this venue were highly qualified.  Donald Abrams, MD is an adult oncologist with 32 years experience.  He gave lectures on "Medical Cannabis and the Endocannabinoid System" and "Clinical Applications of Cannabis: Cancer Care."  Both were highly informative.  He is one of the few people to access cannabis that is grown by NIDA (National Institute of Drug Abuse) and go through the regulatory maze that allows researchers to use it in clinical trials.  He discussed a concept that I had never heard of before called the entourage effect.  The entourage effect was defined as the benefits of using the whole cannabis plant rather than the more specific compounds.  The theory is that there are compounds in the broad mix that enhance the overall effect of the more active ingredients by both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects.  He described this as one of the principles of Chinese medicine, which of course is not the allopathic medicine that we all practice in the US.  He emphasized the benefits of delivery as smoke or vapor rather than oral forms largely due to rapid onset of action and more rapid adjustment of the dose compared with oral forms.  He presented data to show that a particular volcano style vaporizer can consistently deliver therapeutic amounts of cannabis to the patient.  Once that was determined, that was the recommended delivery system for his patients.

Michael Bostwick, MD a Mayo Clinic psychiatrist gave two excellent presentations on "Medical Cannabis: Barriers, Myths, and Evidence" and "Medical Cannabis Statutes and the Role of the Federal Government".  One of the biases discussed by Dr. Bostwick in the seminar was the common observation that advocates see cannabis as a cure for everything when there is scant data that it is useful for the indicated conditions.  Of course that bias may also reflect the mixed agenda of recreational cannabis advocates seeking to legitimize cannabis as medicine and open the door for eventual widespread legalization.  In that endeavor, science would be an expected casualty.  The other bias was hysteria over the adverse medical and societal effects of cannabis use and how at least some of those attitudes may have resulted from racist attitudes in the 1950s.  Images from Reefer Madness were shown, as being emblematic of the spirit of the times.  That exercise does have a much different meaning today.  A good portion of the audience was all seeing and all knowing - eager to laugh at the ignorance of this archaic movie and applaud any speaker who advocated for the removal of all barriers to medical (and non-medical) cannabis use.  The problem is that I was sitting in an audience watching Reefer Madness in 1973 who were acting the same way.  The bottom line is that, these biases have clear effects on legislation and that led to cannabis going from being listed on the US Pharmacopeia for a hundred years to Schedule I on the DEA list of Controlled Substances.  A countervailing fact is that cannabis has been around for 5,000 years and has no clear medical indication.  That was mentioned as a historical fact, but not as a potential rationale for the Schedule I listing.  There was plenty of optimism that the discovery of the endocannabinoid system and getting cannabis off the most restrictive controlled substance category would lead to a whole new era of useful medicinal compounds.

Dr. Bostwick's discussion of the regulatory landscape of cannabis was superb.  I teach this subject myself and he was somehow aware of two more memos from the Justice Department than I was on the practical aspects of enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in the context of increasing legalization at the state level.  He described this as the states "going rogue" which I thought was humorous.  He also carefully laid out the FDA regulatory process and how it is not really set up the approval of botanicals or researchers interested in using cannabis for research purposes.

Ilo Leppik, MD is a long time neurologist and epileptologist in the Twin Cities.  Thirty three years ago when I was an intern on one of the neurology services in town and he was an attending physician.  At about that time, he noticed some basic science research about CBD having potential anticonvulsant properties.  He tried unsuccessfully to get pharmaceutical companies interested in this compound for years.  He discussed the currently available research and the single company that is trying to get FDA approval for a cannabis derived approach to treating seizures.  He is also an advocate for getting all of his neurological colleagues involved as registered certifiers of medical cannabis.  Epileptologists treat refractory seizure disorders that do not adequately respond to other measures and in this population Dr. Leppik would use medical cannabis and he presented the supporting data.

 The well known publicized case of the pediatric patient with seizures was discussed by Dr. Leppik.  This case is frequently cited by pro-cannabis advocates as proof that cannabis is a legitimate medication that needs broader use.  He pointed out that this patient not only did not have the seizure disorder that he was purported to have (Dravet Syndrome) but that he also had not seen the top epileptologist in the state where he resided.  He went on to present a case from his own practice where childhood epilepsy was misdiagnosed.  He made the correct diagnosis, but at that point, the patient's mother insisted that he stay on CBD along with the correct anticonvulsant for the condition.  The patient eventually ran out of the CBD, but the seizures remained in remission because he had been put on the correct standard anticonvulsant for the correct diagnosis - in this case valproate.

Angela Birnbaum, PhD is a pharmacologist and presented the most science of the day.  Straightforward pharmacokinetic principles and how they apply to treating patients with epilepsy.  Her approach also highlighted the advantages of using the Minnesota approach to medical cannabis and being the only way to assure steady levels of the drug necessary to treat epilepsy.  Dr. Birnbaum also presented a graphic similar to the one below on the product types available from the Minnesota companies.  More detailed information is available at the company web sites shown above.

Susan Sencer, MD presented medical cannabis from the perspective of a pediatric oncologist.  With the relatively new medical cannabis laws in Minnesota, her pediatric hospital has certified its use in 19 pediatric patients all with cancer diagnoses.          

To a guy who has been an acute care psychiatrist and an addiction psychiatrist all of his working life, there were clearly some biases operating at this conference that very few people seemed to be aware of.  Cannabis was discussed as a nearly benign product.  Sure we know the endocannabinoid system has something to do with brain development, and sure it could lead to psychosis and early onset of psychosis but probably only in people who were predisposed to psychosis.  There were remarks that none of the panelists who recommended medical cannabis and followed adult patients on that cannabis had ever seen any of them develop an acute psychosis.  There were jokes made about the implausibility of amotivational syndrome.  In the opinion of the panelists side effects were generally benign, even though data was presented from clinical trials suggesting otherwise.  As I looked at the clinicians represented on the panel who treated patients with cannabis there were two oncologists, a neurologist, and a psychiatrist who specialized in treating chronic pain.  Only the psychiatrist talked about treating some people with psychotic disorders and at one point there was a slide that suggested chronic psychotic disorders might be a contraindication to the use of cannabis.  The data presented and the description of the practices suggested to me that there was a strong selection bias present.  The panelists were not seeing psychiatric complications or problems with addictions because they weren't treating anyone with psychiatric disorders or addictions.  Guys like me see those patients and the last thing we want to see is somebody giving our patients cannabis.  I think that it will be a much different story if the list of eligible conditions is expanded to include insomnia, anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder like it is in some states and the list of medical personnel authorized to certify the use of medical cannabis expands.  Just expanding the indication to chronic pain will bring in a patient population that is probably distinctly different from the patient base that the panelists are treating.

As I have written on this blog many times before, I don't like the idea of medical cannabis for the exact same reason that one of the panelists mentioned - it always has been a political manipulation for the legalization of recreational marijuana.  If you want to advocate for the legalization of recreational marijuana that is fine with me, but don't drag physicians into it and pretend it is an allopathic medicine.  That reference came out at the conference many times when it was referred to as a "botanical" and therefore very awkward in the FDA regulatory scheme.  At the same time, I have no problem with oncologists or neurologists telling their patients to use it.  But I am not going to pretend that there is not significant psychiatric morbidity that extends far beyond activating psychosis in those who are predisposed.  And I imagine that many of my colleagues will find this out when they discover that some of their patients now have cannabis added to their list of medications and that many of the panelists will discover this if they start seeing significant numbers of patients with psychiatric problems and addictions.

Despite all of the politics and bias - there is some underlying science that supports medical cannabis and Minnesota has the most rational approach toward implementing it.  Addiction and the psychiatric side effects of these compounds will always be a limiting factor for some.   In that case - as in the case of every other addicting medication - the best solution is to avoid it and try something else.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

1: Bostwick JM. We need to reschedule cannabis. A sane solution to an irrational standoff. Minn Med. 2014 Apr;97(4):36-7. PubMed PMID: 24868930.

2: Bostwick JM. The use of cannabis for management of chronic pain. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2014 Jan-Feb;36(1):2-3. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.08.004. Epub 2013 Oct 1. PubMed PMID: 24091257. 

3: Bostwick JM, Reisfield GM, DuPont RL. Clinical decisions. Medicinal use of marijuana. N Engl J Med. 2013 Feb 28;368(9):866-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMclde1300970. Epub 2013 Feb 20. PubMed PMID: 23425133. 

4: Bostwick JM. Blurred boundaries: the therapeutics and politics of medical marijuana. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012 Feb;87(2):172-86. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.10.003. Review. PubMed PMID: 22305029; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3538401.

5: Abrams DI, Guzman M. Cannabis in cancer care. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015 Jun;97(6):575-86. doi: 10.1002/cpt.108. Epub 2015 Apr 17. Review. PubMed PMID: 25777363. 

6: Hazekamp A, Ware MA, Muller-Vahl KR, Abrams D, Grotenhermen F. The medicinal use of cannabis and cannabinoids--an international cross-sectional survey on administration forms. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2013 Jul-Aug;45(3):199-210. PubMed PMID: 24175484. 

7: Abrams DI, Couey P, Shade SB, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL. Cannabinoid-opioid interaction in chronic pain. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Dec;90(6):844-51. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2011.188. Epub 2011 Nov 2. PubMed PMID: 22048225. 

8: Carter GT, Flanagan AM, Earleywine M, Abrams DI, Aggarwal SK, Grinspoon L. Cannabis in palliative medicine: improving care and reducing opioid-related morbidity. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2011 Aug;28(5):297-303. doi: 10.1177/1049909111402318. Epub 2011 Mar 28. Review. PubMed PMID: 21444324. 

9: Abrams DI, Vizoso HP, Shade SB, Jay C, Kelly ME, Benowitz NL. Vaporization as a smokeless cannabis delivery system: a pilot study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007 Nov;82(5):572-8. Epub 2007 Apr 11. PubMed PMID: 17429350. 

10: Abrams DI, Jay CA, Shade SB, Vizoso H, Reda H, Press S, Kelly ME, Rowbotham MC, Petersen KL. Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Neurology. 2007 Feb 13;68(7):515-21. PubMed PMID: 17296917. 

11: Carter GT, Weydt P, Kyashna-Tocha M, Abrams DI. Medicinal cannabis: rational guidelines for dosing. IDrugs. 2004 May;7(5):464-70. Review. PubMed PMID: 15154108. 

12: Andreae MH, Carter GM, Shaparin N, Suslov K, Ellis RJ, Ware MA, Abrams DI, Prasad H, Wilsey B, Indyk D, Johnson M, Sacks HS. Inhaled Cannabis for Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-analysis of Individual Patient Data. J Pain. 2015 Dec;16(12):1221-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.07.009. Epub 2015 Sep 9. PubMed PMID: 26362106; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4666747.

13: Arneson T. Insights from a Review of Medical Cannabis Clinical Trials. Minn Med. 2015 Jun;98(6):40-2. Review. PubMed PMID: 26168662.

14:  Health Canada web page consumer information on cannabis.

15:  Health Canada Information for Health Care Professionals Cannabis (marihuana, marijuana) and the cannabinoids - a very highly regarded report by the panelists at this conference.  This is the 2013 version and a 2016 update is pending at this time.

16: Katona I. Cannabis and Endocannabinoid Signaling in Epilepsy. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2015;231:285-316. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20825-1_10. Review. PubMed PMID: 26408165. 

17: Devinsky O, Marsh E, Friedman D, Thiele E, Laux L, Sullivan J, Miller I, Flamini R, Wilfong A, Filloux F, Wong M, Tilton N, Bruno P, Bluvstein J, Hedlund J, Kamens R, Maclean J, Nangia S, Singhal NS, Wilson CA, Patel A, Cilio MR. Cannabidiol in patients with treatment-resistant epilepsy: an open-label interventional trial. Lancet Neurol. 2016 Mar;15(3):270-8. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00379-8. Epub 2015 Dec 24. PubMed PMID: 26724101. 

18: Reddy DS, Golub VM. The Pharmacological Basis of Cannabis Therapy for Epilepsy. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2016 Apr;357(1):45-55. doi: 10.1124/jpet.115.230151. Epub 2016 Jan 19. PubMed PMID: 26787773. 

19: Tzadok M, Uliel-Siboni S, Linder I, Kramer U, Epstein O, Menascu S, Nissenkorn A, Yosef OB, Hyman E, Granot D, Dor M, Lerman-Sagie T, Ben-Zeev B. CBD-enriched medical cannabis for intractable pediatric epilepsy: The current Israeli experience. Seizure. 2016 Feb;35:41-4. doi: 10.1016/j.seizure.2016.01.004. Epub 2016 Jan 6. PubMed PMID: 26800377. 

20: Blair RE, Deshpande LS, DeLorenzo RJ. Cannabinoids: is there a potential treatment role in epilepsy? Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16(13):1911-4. Epub 2015 Aug 3. PubMed PMID: 26234319; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4845642. 

21: Rosenberg EC, Tsien RW, Whalley BJ, Devinsky O. Cannabinoids and Epilepsy. Neurotherapeutics. 2015 Oct;12(4):747-68. doi: 10.1007/s13311-015-0375-5. PubMed PMID: 26282273; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4604191. 

22: Kaur R, Ambwani SR, Singh S. ENDOCANNABINOID SYSTEM: A multi-facet therapeutic target. Curr Clin Pharmacol. 2016 Apr 17. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 27086601. 

23: Leo A, Russo E, Elia M. Cannabidiol and epilepsy: Rationale and therapeutic potential. Pharmacol Res. 2016 Mar 11;107:85-92. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2016.03.005. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 26976797.

24:  Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SRB.  Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use.  N Engl J Med 2014; 370:2219-2227,  June 5, 2014;  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMra1402309

Supplementary 1: At this time (Saturday afternoon) - I am still waiting for the link to all of the presentations.  I do plan to add some detailed information at that point - the above information was only what I can recall from direct observation.  As soon as I have those links I will be able to list the actual medical cannabis products in Minnesota.  They are not available on the Medical Cannabis web site or one the sites of either of the manufacturers.  Stay tuned for a graphic containing all of that information.

Supplementary 2:  One of the jokes about addiction specialists at the conference was that they were like "orthopedic surgeons at the bottom of a ski hill."  The obvious implication is that they only see the train wrecks.  The other implication is that non-addiction specialists can prescribe addictive drugs with with no concerns about addiction and they will usually be OK - that is most people will make it safely to the bottom of the ski hill.  Of course by that time they had already presented data that "only" 9% of people who use cannabis get addicted to it, they are almost all young, and the panelists general impressions that their patients did not have a problem with addiction.  There has never been any disagreement that in terminally ill patients - addiction is not a concern.  Chronic pain patients without a terminal illness have a much different problem.   The ethical problem to me is that there may be an obligation to make sure that the skiers can negotiate the hill before you sell them the ticket.  There is also a recent precedent for declaring that prescribing practices were too conservative based on addiction risk.  That happened right before the current prescription opioid epidemic based on seriously flawed studies of addiction.

Supplementary 3:  If you want the best single reference on this subject - go to the Health Canada monograph (reference 15 above).  Read the currently available document and wait for the 2016 update.  It is a free download.

Supplementary 4:  Marijuana and Cannabinoids - an NIH sponsored neuroscience summit; March 22-23, 2016.  Link to the archived video recordings.

AMA versus CDC Patient Education On Opioids

CDC Poster On Opioids For Chronic Pain

The easiest place to start the critique of the initiative to stop opioid overuse in this country is the patient information products for both the CDC and the AMA.  The CDC poster on this subject is shown above and is public domain.  There is more detailed patient information from the CDC at Guideline Information for Patients.  The AMA page on the same subject is at this link.  AMA web site materials are copyrighted and I did not think it was worth the effort to attempt to get that permission.   It is available free online.  How do these guidelines compare with one another and are they likely to be useful to patients?

On inspection they both seem to warn patients that there are potential health problems including addiction and death from taking opioids.  The CDC graphic advises  the patient to actively collaborate with their physician around any potential opioid prescription.  It suggests that the physician in this case will present a number of non-opioid options and a receptive patient will decide how to use them.  Apart from the 1 in 4 statistic it is almost a fairy tale approach to the problem of addiction.  Keep in mind that direct-to-consumer advertising these days frequently end with a staccato-like recitation of side effects "including death" and pharmaceutical companies are not deterred from adding that qualifier.  That suggests to me that these dire warnings are really not a deterrent to people looking for what appears to be a "cure" - at least in some cases.  The more detailed approach from the CDC guideline seems more reasonable, but both do not take into account unconscious factors on the part of both the patient and physician.  The AMA version is seriously watered down, but both lack realistic information about addiction works.

The real issue with opioids is not that 1 in 4 people end up addicted to them.  That 1 in 4 number is after all an intent-to-treat number.  There are probably at least that many people who don't tolerate opioids at all, even on an acute basis.  Taking those people out, bumps up the number of potentially addicted to 1 in 3.  The real problem here is how the addiction occurs and the implications for primary and secondary prevention.  I can tell anyone who cares to listen that the secondary prevention aspect of opioid addiction is a long and arduous process, with no guarantee of a cure at the end of it.  Imagine that you have just started a family and started out in the workplace when the addiction occurs.  Contrary to all of the hype about medication assisted treatment with buprenorphine or naltrexone, this kind of treatment does not work well for everyone.  Addiction to an opioid may require that you participate in some form of education based treatment for up to three months or take long absences from your work and family to live in sober structured environments.  The structured environments are costly and the quality of these settings cannot be assured.  What the AMA and CDC references do not show is that if you have an addiction - you might be in a very expensive treatment program and still not be interested in stopping the opiate.  You may not feel ready to quit after one or more of these treatments.  The real danger of an addiction is that it alters your conscious state to continue the addiction, even in an environment where you are supposed to be learning how to get sober and maintain sobriety.

The AMA and CDC resources are short on this aspect of opioid addiction.  These pages should tell people a couple of other things aimed at preventing addiction rather than recognizing addiction and trying to treat it after it happens.  Here are the bullet points:

1.  Practically all people at-risk know it after they have taken the first few doses of medication.  The opioid makes them feel euphoric or ecstatic.  Contrary to the popular image of heroin addicts falling asleep, the at-risk population is energized and may feel like they have become more productive than they have ever been.  That response establishes a dangerous link between productivity and opioid use.  The at-risk population also has an enhanced perception of themselves.  They may suddenly perceive themselves as having become the person they always wanted to be.  That can include the perception of a number of positive personal qualities including confidence, intelligence, and creativity.  All of these reinforcing qualities disappear once tolerance to the drug occurs.

2.  People at-risk may notice that long standing anxiety, insomnia or depression is suddenly gone.  As an example, there are many people with social anxiety in childhood and early adult life.  Social anxiety is a condition where the person is overly concerned about being judged when they are out in public.  The associated concerns may be that they will be embarrassed or humiliated.  There is often an associated performance anxiety in certain situations.  This part of the at-risk population may notice that all of those concerns are completely gone when they start taking opioids.  All of these reinforcing qualities disappear once tolerance to the drug occurs and anxiety, depression, and insomnia recur (often amplified) during withdrawal and detoxification.

3.   The concept that opioids are medications that can reinforce their own use whether or not they actually work for pain is a difficult one to grasp.  In other words, the at-risk population may want to keep taking opioids even in cases where they do absolutely nothing to alleviate pain.  In this case it is not a question of tolerance to the analgesic effects of opioids.  The opioids did not work in the first place.  Opioids are only moderately effective for chronic pain in the first place and those effects are on par with antidepressants and anticonvulsants like gabapentin.

4.  Opioids can change your baseline personality and cause you to do things that you ordinarily would never have done.   Once an addiction has been established decision-making is in the service of maintaining the addiction.  That can include any number of legal and moral decisions that that involve the people who are closest to the person with the addiction.  The repercussions of these acts are not fully appreciated until the person is detoxified and is sober from the opioid.

5.  Opioids are legendary in the American culture.  The American culture strongly reinforces the place of intoxicants in the lives of even average Americans.  Intoxicants are in the literature, the media, and even day-to-day conversations.  People tend to hoard their unused opioids, exchange them with their friends and family, and talk about the effect of these drugs with their neighbors.  To illustrate, an acquaintance of mine recently had arthroscopic surgery of the knee.  He was in a large post-op recovery area with 8 other people.  Nursing staff were approaching people and asking them what they wanted for pain relief.  The choices were hydromorphone (Dilaudid) - a potent opioid, oxycodone-acetaminophen (Percocet) - a less potent opioid, and ibuprofen - a non-opioid.  The vote in the recovery room was 8-0 in favor of hydromorphone.  That vote parallels the disproportionate increase in emergency department visits for complications from hydromorphone relative to all other opioids.   Of course there are many variables at play, but I am suggesting at least one of them is the reputation that hydromorphone has in American culture as a potent euphoria producing opioid.

6.  Part of the American legend is that opioids are the magic bullet for pain.  The corollary is that if the doctor would just give me enough of this drug - my pain would be gone.  The important distinction here is chronic pain.  Across large populations there is no medication that will get rid of chronic pain.  For many people, no treatment at all, treatment with a non-opioid medication, or treatment with a different modality like cognitive-behavioral therapy works much better.

There are all important points for people to know before they start taking opioids.  I think that a clinical trial is indicated to see if people with this information do better than those without it.  If I was designing that trial, I would have an intervention that advised people to stop taking the medication and call the physician immediately if they experienced any change in their conscious state like the ones I described in points 1, 2 or 3 above.

Stopping opioid addiction well before it is established is the preferred intervention.  There is certainly effective treatment once an addiction has been established but it can be long, expensive, difficult, and the outcome is never guaranteed.  Anyone who starts to take an opioid needs that level of transparency.



George Dawson, MD, DLFAPA         

Attribution:  The infographic at the top of this post is from the CDC web site and is reused per their general information about being in the public domain.  The poster is available at:
 http://www.cdc.gov/drugoverdose/pdf/guidelines_patients_poster-a.pdf

Ethics, Law, and Politics In Psychiatry

I just spent yesterday at the 2016 Minnesota Psychiatric Society Ethical Issues In Mental Health for 2016.  It was a long day, especially for a guy who wants lectures and information.  About 1 1/2 hours was dedicated to a group discussion of cases.  I am always more interested in what the experts have to say - that is my comfort zone at CME courses and meetings.  The first lecturer was Rebecca Weintraub Brendel, MD, JD from the Harvard Medical School Center for Bioethics.  She was also the Chairperson for the Ad Hoc Work Group for the American Psychiatric Association on Revising the Ethics Annotations.  That resulted in the document APA Commentary on Ethics In Practice from December 2015.  A complete listing of the members of that working group is available in the document.  She started out by talking about the Trolley problem and reviewing the various approaches to this issue.  The ethical theories that applied were briefly reviewed including deontology, consequentialism (utilitarianism), virtue ethics, and principalism.  She said that the field has evolved to the point where principalism is the dominant paradigm.  Principalism includes the broad areas of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice.  At this time any search on bookselling websites will pull up a number of references on principalism, including critiques of the concept.  I will probably pick up a copy of one of these books to see just how heavily  the justice component in medicine includes social justice and concepts like global warming.  I have always been amazed at why physicians would expend valuable energy on these issues when they have been unable to protect the integrity of their profession.

A lot of time was spent discussing professional boundaries with some focus on electronic media and communicating with patients.  The afternoon cases discussion focused on two psychiatrists with multiple ethical problems some of which included clear ethical issues involving both social media and electronic communication.  In Minnesota, the consensus is that e-mail communication with patients using typical insecure e-mail is not a good idea, but many psychiatrists are employed by organizations that use secure e-mail through a health system portal.  One of the hypothetical case examples given was membership on Facebook of group therapy members and all of the problems that involves.  One of the key aspects of treating patients like psychiatrists involves not just interpersonal boundaries but also boundaries around the therapy like contact and phone calls outside of the sessions.  Online contact with either frequent e-mail or social media creates the illusion that the psychiatrist is always online and available.  That every comment will be noted, analyzed and responded to.  This is not only unrealistic availability, but also unrealistic analysis.  Psychiatrists more than any other physician should know that typed statements online are very poor substitutes for analyzing the emotional content of communication especially where aggression, suicide, and other critical aspects of judgment are the focus.

The second lecture was given by Colleen M. Coyle, JD General Counsel for the APA and it was titled When Law And Ethics Collide....   Privacy rules, informed consent and substituted consent were the early issues.  A suggested authorization form that covers all of the contingencies was suggested.  I can recall signing several including the standard recredentialing forms that authorizes multiple unknown parties complete access to any and all information about me.  The coercive nature of these forms was not discussed.  I see even the most standard consent to treatment form as fairly coercive these days, especially the sections that cover requirements for disclosure by state laws.  A comparison of attorney-client privilege vs. physician-patient privilege would have been instructive.  I think it would point out the obvious - once again that physicians have done a poor job of protecting their profession and that lawyers have succeeded in making legal decisions (Tarasoff) part of the psychiatric code of ethics.  Some of the vague situations of disclosure under the more liberal HIPAA versus the more restrictive CFR42 were discussed.

The discussion ended on prescription drug monitoring programs, the ethics and the current legal landscape.  The legal landscape was most interesting in terms of who inputs the data and whether mandatory accessing of the database exists.  Thirty one states require that prescribers access the database and 11 of those also require a query.  Nineteen states do not require mandatory access.  There are criminal and civil penalties for not reporting controlled substance prescriptions in the database.  Twenty six states and D.C. provide some immunity from civil liability for not accessing and using the database.  Minnesota has a very reasonable approach.  Pharmacy data populates the database and accessing the database is not mandatory.  As a physician I can't imagine having to treat patients, do all of the necessary documentation and orders/prescriptions and then access a separate database and re-enter the prescriptions.  If that is happening to any extent in other states that is another serious abuse of physician time.  It is also part of the general trend of dictating how physicians practice medicine.  Learning what rules apply to you in your particular state is critical irrespective of how rational the process may or may not be.

Ruth Martinez, MA Executive Director of the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice was the third presenter.  Her emphasis was on documentation, boundary issues, informed consent, and response or lack of response to the treatment plan.  An important concept that I have always used is documentation of the informed consent process.  A written and signed document is not needed (with the exception of ECT and antipsychotic medications in the state of Minnesota), but documentation of the discussion is useful.  In situations where the discussion covers a lot of contingencies, it is useful to come back to that part of the document in terms of treatment planning and what the next step might be.  The only potential problem is that when everyone has access to your thinking, suddenly everyone is an expert as in: "I noticed in your note that if this antidepressant was not effective your plan was to change to antidepressant B.  I discussed this with the patient and he wants to try B now."

The part of the presentation that I was in disagreement with was the discussion of the power differential in the physician-patient relationship.  The rhetoric of power is an interesting one that I hear discussed much more frequently outside of medicine than inside.  In my experience social workers tend to discuss power in relationships.  To me,  power is a nonspecific word.  When I am obsessing about making the right decisions in very uncertain situations - being some sort of omnipotent authority figure is the farthest thing from my mind.  All of the psychiatrists I know operate from a therapeutic alliance model and that can be captured by two sentences:  "The therapeutic alliance means that you and I are working to solve your problems.  In that context it is my job to give you the best possible medical advice on how to do that and your job to decide about whether you want to use that advice or not."  Even in the cases where substitute consent is required like civil commitments or guardianships, the physician involved basically brings the problem to the attention of a judge who makes the determination.  Physicians do not want to run patients' lives.

Steve Miles, MD from the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics gave the scientific part of the program on the epidemiology of gun violence.  It had striking similarities to some of the positions I have posted here on how to approach this problem that I plan to discuss that as a separate post.  He also reviewed the political timeline on how research into gun violence was eventually defunded courtesy of heavy lobbying by the pro-gun forces in Washington.  

I thought that politics was the important word that was left out of the ethics discussions.  As an example, the issue of torture was discussed and how the American Psychiatric Association came to the position that psychiatrists should not participate in torture.  That was a lengthy discussion that eventually came down to a line in the sand - psychiatrists should never participate in torture.  That is not true for two other ethical dilemmas discussed in this conference - managed care utilization review and collaborative care.  Instead hypotheticals were discussed.  If you were this managed care reviewer and your company wanted you to deny specific care that you knew was indicated - what would you do?  Similarly - if you were in this collaborative care arrangement and your salary and bonuses depended on what you were using to fund the "at risk" population that you were seeing - what would you do?   So basically being a military psychiatrist asked to perform torture there is a clear ethical guideline and in the managed care and collaborative care situations you are on your own.  You can call me concrete, but if I was king, the latter two situations would also be forbidden by the ethical code of psychiatrists.  In the case of collaborative care the APA recently announced (1) it received a federal grant to "train 3,500 psychiatrists in the clinical and leadership skills needed to support primary care practices that are implementing integrated behavioral health programs."  Instead of questioning the ethics of a practice that limits the direct assessment of patients by psychiatrists and potentially creates financial conflicts of interest - at the organizational level the APA celebrates this grant and making the practice it more broadly available to all psychiatrists!

Calling the APA Ethics Committee with your ethical dilemmas was encouraged and they clearly take it seriously, but I think these inconsistencies do not make the organization popular among clinicians who deal with these problems on a day by day basis.  They are as easily solved as the questions about physician participation in torture and executions.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


References:

1:  Mark Moran.  APA Receives Federal Grant to Train Psychiatrists In Integrated Care.  Psychiatric News - November 6, 2015.  v50(21): p.1.

The grant to train 3,500 psychiatrists was $2.9 million over 4 years or about $828 per psychiatrist.  Each psychiatrist is expected to support up to 50 primary care providers and consult on the care of 400 patients per year.  The ultimate goal is to support 150,000 primary care providers and consult on the care of a million patients a year.  Does anyone see the problems here?     



                     

More On Conscious States......

In my previous post, I concluded that the conscious states of human beings were far too complicated to allow an algorithmic decision on whether or not they are candidate for the euthanasia and assisted suicide.  The argument may not be all that clear to anyone who does not have psychiatric experience so I thought I would add more examples,  These are all fairly standard clinical scenarios but not specific case reports.

Scenario 1:  A 65 year old man with a long history of alcoholism presents for assessment of possible bipolar disorder.  He is euphoric, grandiose, and appears to be mildly intoxicated.  The psychiatrist performs a clinical interview that includes a standardized cognitive screen.  On the cognitive screen the patient performs perfectly for a person with his level of academic and occupational achievement, including on all tests of short term and working memory.  He returns two weeks later for follow up and does not recall ever meeting the psychiatrist or doing the cognitive exam.

Scenario 2:  A 42 year old woman with a history of bipolar disorder presents for follow-up from a recent hospitalization.  Her psychiatrist also works in the hospital and provided her care when she was in the inpatient unit.  During the follow-up visit the patient asks her psychiatrist if she recognized the fact that she was "not myself" either in the hospital or at the time of discharge.  When asked to be more specific she said that she was very angry and had attempted to drown herself while in the hospital but did not disclose that to the psychiatrist or nursing staff.  She criticized the psychiatrist for not recognizing that and suggested that she should never have been discharged.

Scenario 3:  A 50 year old woman is being seen for depression.  She has had recurrent episodes of depression following an episode of postpartum depression at age 28.  She has been on maintenance antidepressant therapy since age 28 and requested this appointment because it seemed like the maintenance therapy was no longer as effective.  In the appointment she appears to be mildly depressed.  She has some depressogenic thinking that does not seem much different from many other similar episodes in the past that generally required minor adjustments of medication and supportive psychotherapy with cognitive-behavioral interventions.  Those changes were made and suicide risk was assessed in a standard way by her psychiatrist.  She has no past history of suicide attempts.  Deterrents to suicidal behavior were discussed and she reminds the psychiatrist that she is very religious and her religion has a strong proscription against suicide.  A follow-up appointment is set.  Three days later, the patient's husband calls the psychiatrist to let her know that the patient attempted suicide and is recovering in a local hospital.

Scenario 4: A 22 year old man is being seen for heroin addiction and depression.  He is hospitalized following an accidental heroin overdose and contemplating transfer to residential treatment for substance use disorders.  During the interview he discusses his depression as the result of guilt and regret from some of the activities he has engaged in to have a steady supply of heroin.  He talks about those activities in detail including stealing from his friends and family, dealing drugs, and and in one case witnessing an episode where drug dealers severely beat up one of his acquaintances to the point that person nearly died.  He concludes that all of these activities are "not me - I wasn't raised this way.  I have values and I don't break the law.  Now I break the law every day and it is just a matter of time before I end up in prison.  I can't do this anymore."  The psychiatric consultant asks him about the decision to go to the rehab hospital so that arrangements can be made and the patient says: "I don't think that I am ready to stop using heroin yet"        

This is a short list of what I see as changes in conscious state that are not well captured or described in the current psychiatric nomenclature.  Part of that comes from the fact that psychiatry is a subspecialty of medicine and all medical classifications are by their nature imprecise, linear and somewhat static.  The ideal medical diagnosis implies a certain general course and prognosis.  That selection process will find static linear processes more ideal in terms of meeting those criteria than dynamic processes that can change minute to minute or hour to hour.  Human consciousness changes on that shorter time frame, is nonlinear and therefore unpredictable.  There certainly can be more drastic and persistent changes in consciousness that are more easily recognizable-like delirium or dementia.  Even the scenarios outlined above suggest significant disruptions in consciousness to the point that result in amnesia, unpredictable suicidal behavior and suicide attempts, and drug addiction.  Some would consider the alcohol induced amnesia or blackout  to be the more severe disruption, but that is purely a subjective judgment.  It is possible for people to have hundreds if not thousands of blackouts and appear to be functional during that time.  That is certainly a major problem and a high risk problem but no more risky than a suicide attempt that results in hospitalization or the decision to continue heroin right after an overdose as tolerance is waning.

Recognition that these conscious states exist makes a psychiatrist a far better clinician.  He or she is much less likely to get angry or upset about unpredictable events like suicide attempts and relapses to drug or alcohol use.  An appreciation of the fluidity of human consciousness, precludes any angry or blaming of the patient for something that happens outside of a limited standard evaluation.  There is a strong tendency of physicians who are unaware of this phenomenon to either get angry and think that the patient lied to them in the original assessment, adopt the fatalistic attitude that these events are all unpredictable and nothing can be done about them, or adapt a paternalistic attitude and sympathize that the person has a mysterious disease that they should not be blamed for.  None of these attitudes captures the true conscious state of the individual.

Are there any interventions that can be done to reduce the risk from these rapid changes in conscious state?  That is currently an empirical question.  A lot depends on the ability to detect persons with the problem.  There are certainly plenty of people who told a physician that they were not suicidal and who went on in a short period of time to attempt or complete suicide.  In some cases the survivors are available for interview.  In hospital settings interviewing survivors of self-inflicted gunshot wounds it is very common for the patient to recall pointing the gun at themselves but not recall pulling the trigger.  Survivors who have jumped off the Gold Gate Bridge almost all regret jumping when they were a few feet away from the rail.  At the minimum this suggests that the conscious state of the actively suicidal person is transient and impulsive as in unpredictably driven to act on the suicidal plan.  Young opioid addicts are very common these days and generally personify the Hijacked Brain Hypothesis or a brain that is biased to continue an addiction and the associated behaviors that are in stark contrast to their previous moral development and educational and vocational trajectory.    

Any clinician who is aware of these changes in conscious state can educate the patient about what is happening.  During an assessment of suicidal risk after a discussion of all of the risk and mitigating factors, I think that it is reasonable to have a discussion with the patient about their current conscious state and risk based on that conscious state as well as the fact that conscious states change in some cases to a high risk state.  Any psychiatrist who has interviewed survivors of suicide is often struck with what that person describes as a clearly different state of mind from the one being experienced in the interview.  In some cases that altered state is drug induced.  The DSM-5 catches a glimpse of these phenomena with two tables on Neurocognitive domains on Page 593 and Diagnoses associated with substance class on Page 482.  Both categories recognize that  changes can be transient and limited to intoxication or withdrawal states, but there are also some persisting states depending on the intoxicant.  The table on neurocognitive domains lists some subtle manifestations of known brain disorders.  The DSM-5 does not look at the more subtle changes as noted in the above 5 scenarios or even in everyday life.   Another limitation of medical diagnoses is that they work the best in extreme states where there are obvious problems.  Everyday life and the kinds of changes we all observe in our spouse or parents in any given environment are the most subtle yet.

I hope that these examples have made it clear that psychiatric practice is much more than categorial diagnosis and risk factor analysis.  If there is any hope for a 21st century psychiatry - this is where I would put my marker - not on the same diagnostic system and mental exam that we have been using for the last 50 years and certainly not on a checklist and mass medication approach being promoted as collaborative care.

A focus on consciousness is the best way to help our patients and the best way to learn how the brain is really working.




George Dawson, MD, DFAPA



Supplementary: 

The graphic at the top is part of one slide from one of my lectures on the neurobiology of addiction.  My emphasis to the students is human consciousness and why it is unique.  I try to get them to think outside of the DSM-5 box when considering how the patient changes on a practical basis day-to-day and how that relates to neurobiology.