Post-Roe v Wade psychiatry: legal, clinical, and ethical challenges in psychiatry under abortion bans.

In recent history, the world has witnessed a trend towards liberalization of abortion laws driven by an increasing understanding of the negative personal and public health consequences of criminalizing abortion. By contrast, several countries have recently implemented restrictive reproductive laws, joining the 112 countries where access to abortion care is banned completely or with narrow exceptions. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned its landmark decisions in Roe v Wade that established abortion until the point of viability of the fetus as a constitutional right. After Roe v Wade having been overturned, it is projected that many women in the USA will be prevented from accessing safe abortion care. Importantly, abortion bans not only impose constraints on patient autonomy, they also restrict physicians' ability to practice evidence-based medicine, which will negatively impact psychiatric care. It is therefore crucial for the practicing psychiatrist to be familiar with this new legal landscape. In this Personal View, we aim to provide a topical overview to help clinicians gain a clear understanding of legal, clinical, and ethical responsibilities, focusing on the USA. We also discuss the reality that psychiatrists might be called upon to determine medical necessity for an abortion on psychiatric grounds, which is new for most US psychiatrists. We predict that psychiatrists will be confronted with very difficult situations in which lawful and ethical conduct might be incongruent, and that abortion bans will result in greater numbers of patients needing psychiatric care from a system that is ill-prepared for additional demands.

Pharmacogenomic Clinical Support Tools for the Treatment of Depression.

OBJECTIVE: In this review, the authors update the 2018 position statement of the American Psychiatric Association Council of Research Workgroup on Biomarkers and Novel Treatments on pharmacogenomic (PGx) tools for treatment selection in depression. METHODS: The literature was reviewed for new clinical trials and meta-analyses, published from 2017 to 2022, of studies using PGx tools for treatment selection in depression. The blinding and control conditions, as well as primary and secondary outcomes and post hoc analyses, were summarized. RESULTS: Eleven new clinical trials and five meta-analyses were identified; all studies had primary outcome measures related to speed or efficacy of treatment response. Three trials (27%) demonstrated efficacy on the primary outcome measure with statistical significance; the three studies used different PGx tools; one study was open-label and the other two were small single-blind trials. Five trials (45%) did not detect efficacy with statistical significance on either primary or secondary outcome measures. Only one trial (9%) used adverse events as a primary outcome measure. All studies had significant limitations; for example, none adopted a fully blinded study design, only two studies attempted to blind the treating clinician, and none incorporated measures to estimate the effectiveness of the blinds or the influence of lack of blinding on the study results. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of these new data do not alter the recommendations of the 2018 report, or the advice of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that the evidence does not support the use of currently available combinatorial PGx tools for treatment selection in major depressive disorder. Priority efforts for future studies and the development and testing of effective tools include fully blinded study designs, inclusion of promising genetic variants not currently included in any commercially available tests, and investigation of other uses of pharmacogenomics, such as estimating the likelihood of rare adverse drug effects, rather than increasing the speed or magnitude of drug response.

High-Intensity Care for Nursing Home Residents with Severe Dementia Hospitalized at the End of Life: A Mixed Methods Study.

OBJECTIVE: For nursing home residents with severe dementia, high-intensity medical treatment offers little possibility of benefit but has the potential to cause significant distress. Nevertheless, mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) transfers have increased in this population. We sought to understand how and why such care is occurring. DESIGN: Mixed methods study, with retrospective collection of qualitative and quantitative data. SETTING: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals. METHODS: Using the Minimum Data Set, we identified veterans aged ≥65 years who had severe dementia, lived in nursing homes, and died in 2013. We selected those who underwent mechanical ventilation or ICU transfer in the last 30 days of life. We restricted our sample to patients receiving care at VA hospitals because these hospitals share an electronic medical record, from which we collected structured information and constructed detailed narratives of how medical decisions were made. We used qualitative content analysis to identify distinct paths to high-intensity treatment in these narratives. RESULTS: Among 163 veterans, 41 (25.2%) underwent mechanical ventilation or ICU transfer. Their median age was 85 (IQR, 80-94), 97.6% were male, and 67.5% were non-Hispanic white. More than a quarter had living wills declining some or all treatment. There were 5 paths to high-intensity care. The most common (18 of 41 patients) involved families who struggled with decisions. Other patients (15 of 41) received high-intensity care reflexively, before discussion with a surrogate. Four patients had families who advocated repeatedly for aggressive treatment, against clinical recommendations. In 2 cases, information about the patient's preferences was erroneous or unavailable. In 2 cases, there was difficulty identifying a surrogate. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings highlight the role of surrogates' difficulty with decision making and of health system-level factors in end-of-life ICU transfers and mechanical ventilation among nursing home residents with severe dementia.

Accelerated TMS - moving quickly into the future of depression treatment.

Accelerated TMS is an emerging application of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) aimed to reduce treatment length and improve response time. Extant literature generally shows similar efficacy and safety profiles compared to the FDA-cleared protocols for TMS to treat major depressive disorder (MDD), yet accelerated TMS research remains at a very early stage in development. The few applied protocols have not been standardized and vary significantly across a set of core elements. In this review, we consider nine elements that include treatment parameters (i.e., frequency and inter-stimulation interval), cumulative exposure (i.e., number of treatment days, sessions per day, and pulses per session), individualized parameters (i.e., treatment target and dose), and brain state (i.e., context and concurrent treatments). Precisely which of these elements is critical and what parameters are most optimal for the treatment of MDD remains unclear. Other important considerations for accelerated TMS include durability of effect, safety profiles as doses increase over time, the possibility and advantage of individualized functional neuronavigation, use of biological readouts, and accessibility for patients most in need of the treatment. Overall, accelerated TMS appears to hold promise to reduce treatment time and achieve rapid reduction in depressive symptoms, but at this time significant work remains to be done. Rigorous clinical trials combining clinical outcomes and neuroscientific measures such as electroencephalogram, magnetic resonance imaging and e-field modeling are needed to define the future of accelerated TMS for MDD.

Efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of repeated subcutaneous ketamine injections for treatment-resistant depression (KADS study): randomised double-blind active-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior trials suggest that intravenous racemic ketamine is a highly effective for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but phase 3 trials of racemic ketamine are needed. AIMS: To assess the acute efficacy and safety of a 4-week course of subcutaneous racemic ketamine in participants with TRD. Trial registration: ACTRN12616001096448 at www.anzctr.org.au. METHOD: This phase 3, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled multicentre trial was conducted at seven mood disorders centres in Australia and New Zealand. Participants received twice-weekly subcutaneous racemic ketamine or midazolam for 4 weeks. Initially, the trial tested fixed-dose ketamine 0.5 mg/kg versus midazolam 0.025 mg/kg (cohort 1). Dosing was revised, after a Data Safety Monitoring Board recommendation, to flexible-dose ketamine 0.5-0.9 mg/kg or midazolam 0.025-0.045 mg/kg, with response-guided dosing increments (cohort 2). The primary outcome was remission (Montgomery-Åsberg Rating Scale for Depression score ≤10) at the end of week 4. RESULTS: The final analysis (those who received at least one treatment) comprised 68 in cohort 1 (fixed-dose), 106 in cohort 2 (flexible-dose). Ketamine was more efficacious than midazolam in cohort 2 (remission rate 19.6% v. 2.0%; OR = 12.1, 95% CI 2.1-69.2, P = 0.005), but not different in cohort 1 (remission rate 6.3% v. 8.8%; OR = 1.3, 95% CI 0.2-8.2, P = 0.76). Ketamine was well tolerated. Acute adverse effects (psychotomimetic, blood pressure increases) resolved within 2 h. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately dosed subcutaneous racemic ketamine was efficacious and safe in treating TRD over a 4-week treatment period. The subcutaneous route is practical and feasible.