Comparative effectiveness research trial for antidepressant incomplete and non-responders with treatment resistant depression (ASCERTAIN-TRD) a randomized clinical trial.

Further research is needed to help improve both the standard of care and the outcome for patients with treatment-resistant depression. A particularly critical evidence gap exists with respect to whether pharmacological or non-pharmacological augmentation is superior to antidepressant switch, or vice-versa. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of augmentation with aripiprazole or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus switching to the antidepressant venlafaxine XR (or duloxetine for those not eligible to receive venlafaxine) for treatment-resistant depression. In this multi-site, 8-week, randomized, open-label study, 278 subjects (196 females and 82 males, mean age 45.6 years (SD 15.3)) with treatment-resistant depression were assigned in a 1:1:1 fashion to treatment with either of these three interventions; 235 subjects completed the study. 260 randomized subjects with at least one post-baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating (MADRS) assessment were included in the analysis. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (score change (standard error (se)) = -17.39 (1.3) (p = 0.015) but not aripiprazole augmentation (score change (se) = -14.9 (1.1) (p = 0.069) was superior to switch (score change (se) = -13.22 (1.1)) on the MADRS. Aripiprazole (mean change (se) = -37.79 (2.9) (p = 0.003) but not repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation (mean change (se) = -42.96 (3.6) (p = 0.031) was superior to switch (mean change (se) = -34.45 (3.0)) on the symptoms of depression questionnaire. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation was shown to be more effective than switching antidepressants in treatment-resistant depression on the study primary measure. In light of these findings, clinicians should consider repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation augmentation early-on for treatment-resistant depression.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02977299.

Incidence of Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempt Based on Time in a Deployed Environment.

INTRODUCTION: Knowing when suicidal ideation (SI) or suicide attempt (SA) is most likely to occur in a deployed environment would aid in focusing prevention efforts. This study aims to determine when evacuation for SA and SI is most likely to occur based on the absolute and relative number of months in a deployed setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a case-control study of active-duty military personnel evacuated from the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility for SI or an SA between April 1, 2020, and March 30, 2021. The arrival month and expected departure month were identified for all the included evacuees. The month of evacuation and proportion of completed deployment were compared. Secondary outcomes of mental health diagnosis or need for a waiver was also examined. RESULTS: A total of 138 personnel evacuated for SI or attempted suicide during the 12-month study period were included in the analysis. Evacuations occurring during month 3 of deployment were significantly higher (P < .0001) than those during other months. The 30% and 50% completion point of deployment had statistically higher frequencies of evacuations for SI/SA (<.0001). A secondary analysis revealed that 25.4% of the individuals had a documented preexisting behavioral health condition before deployment (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Specific points along a deployment timeline were significant predictors for being evacuated for SI and SA.

Predictive Validity of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale among a Cohort of At-risk Veterans.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties of the Columbia- Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) among a cohort of veterans identified to be at risk for suicide. METHOD: Convergent, divergent, and predictive validity of the C-SSRS were examined using secondary data from a study of veterans who presented to the psychiatric emergency room (n = 237). Data were collected 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months following emergency room discharge. RESULTS: Results demonstrated good evidence for convergent and divergent validity. Baseline intensity subscale scores predicted actual and interrupted attempts, and any behavior for all available data and for the subsample who had 6-month follow-up data, and also predicted preparatory behavior in the full sample. Baseline severity subscale scores predicted preparatory behavior and any behavior for the full sample and for those with 6 months of follow-up, and actual attempts for the full sample. Severity of ideation cutoff scores was significantly associated with actual attempts and any behavior in both samples. Adding a prior behavior criterion demonstrated similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that the C-SSRS is a psychometrically sound measure that can be used to augment suicide risk assessment with veterans who are already identified to be at risk for suicide.

Comparison of the Safety Planning Intervention With Follow-up vs Usual Care of Suicidal Patients Treated in the Emergency Department.

Importance: Suicidal behavior is a major public health problem in the United States. The suicide rate has steadily increased over the past 2 decades; middle-aged men and military veterans are at particularly high risk. There is a dearth of empirically supported brief intervention strategies to address this problem in health care settings generally and particularly in emergency departments (EDs), where many suicidal patients present for care. Objective: To determine whether the Safety Planning Intervention (SPI), administered in EDs with follow-up contact for suicidal patients, was associated with reduced suicidal behavior and improved outpatient treatment engagement in the 6 months following discharge, an established high-risk period. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort comparison design with 6-month follow-up at 9 EDs (5 intervention sites and 4 control sites) in Veterans Health Administration hospital EDs. Patients were eligible for the study if they were 18 years or older, had an ED visit for a suicide-related concern, had inpatient hospitalization not clinically indicated, and were able to read English. Data were collected between 2010 and 2015; data were analyzed between 2016 and 2018. Interventions: The intervention combines SPI and telephone follow-up. The SPI was defined as a brief clinical intervention that combined evidence-based strategies to reduce suicidal behavior through a prioritized list of coping skills and strategies. In telephone follow-up, patients were contacted at least 2 times to monitor suicide risk, review and revise the SPI, and support treatment engagement. Main Outcomes and Measures: Suicidal behavior and behavioral health outpatient services extracted from medical records for 6 months following ED discharge. Results: Of the 1640 total patients, 1186 were in the intervention group and 454 were in the comparison group. Patients in the intervention group had a mean (SD) age of 47.15 (14.89) years and 88.5% were men (n = 1050); patients in the comparison group had a mean (SD) age of 49.38 (14.47) years and 88.1% were men (n = 400). Patients in the SPI+ condition were less likely to engage in suicidal behavior (n = 36 of 1186; 3.03%) than those receiving usual care (n = 24 of 454; 5.29%) during the 6-month follow-up period. The SPI+ was associated with 45% fewer suicidal behaviors, approximately halving the odds of suicidal behavior over 6 months (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.33-0.95, P = .03). Intervention patients had more than double the odds of attending at least 1 outpatient mental health visit (odds ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.57-2.71; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This large-scale cohort comparison study found that SPI+ was associated with a reduction in suicidal behavior and increased treatment engagement among suicidal patients following ED discharge and may be a valuable clinical tool in health care settings.

Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Suicide Risk Among Hospital Emergency Department Patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study estimated the expected cost-effectiveness and population impact of outpatient interventions to reduce suicide risk among patients presenting to general hospital emergency departments (EDs), compared with usual care. Several such interventions have been found efficacious, but none is yet widespread, and the cost-effectiveness of population-based implementation is unknown. METHODS: Modeled cost-effectiveness analysis compared three ED-initiated suicide prevention interventions previously found to be efficacious-follow-up via postcards or caring letters, follow-up via telephone outreach, and suicide-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)-with usual care. Primary outcomes were treatment costs, suicides, and life-years saved, evaluated over the year after the index ED visit. RESULTS: Compared with usual care, adding postcards improved outcomes and reduced costs. Adding telephone outreach and suicide-focused CBT, respectively, improved outcomes at a mean incremental cost of $4,300 and $18,800 per life-year saved, respectively. Monte Carlo simulation (1,000 repetitions) revealed the chance of incremental cost-effectiveness to be a certainty for all three interventions, assuming societal willingness to pay ≥$50,000 per life-year. These main findings were robust to various sensitivity analyses, including conservative assumptions about effect size and incremental costs. Population impact was limited by low sensitivity of detecting ED patients' suicide risk, and health care delivery inefficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: The highly favorable cost-effectiveness found for each outpatient intervention provides a strong basis for widespread implementation of any or all of the interventions. The estimated population benefits of doing so would be enhanced by increasing the sensitivity of suicide risk detection among individuals presenting to general hospital EDs.

Suicidal Behavior and Non-Suicidal Self-Injury in Emergency Departments Underestimated by Administrative Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: External causes of injury codes (E-codes) are used in administrative and claims databases for billing and often employed to estimate the number of self-injury visits to emergency departments (EDs). AIMS: This study assessed the accuracy of E-codes using standardized, independently administered research assessments at the time of ED visits. METHOD: We recruited 254 patients at three psychiatric emergency departments in the United States between 2007 and 2011, who completed research assessments after presenting for suicide-related concerns and were classified as suicide attempters (50.4%, n = 128), nonsuicidal self-injurers (11.8%, n = 30), psychiatric controls (29.9%, n = 76), or interrupted suicide attempters (7.8%, n = 20). These classifications were compared with their E-code classifications. RESULTS: Of the participants, 21.7% (55/254) received an E-code. In all, 36.7% of research-classified suicide attempters and 26.7% of research-classified nonsuicidal self-injurers received self-inflicted injury E-codes. Those who did not receive an E-code but should have based on the research assessments had more severe psychopathology, more Axis I diagnoses, more suicide attempts, and greater suicidal ideation. LIMITATIONS: The sample came from three large academic medical centers and these findings may not be generalizable to all EDs. CONCLUSION: The frequency of ED visits for self-inflicted injury is much greater than current figures indicate and should be increased threefold.

Impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Emergency Psychiatry.

Emergency psychiatry (EP) is an integral component of comprehensive hospital-based emergency care. EP developed and grew into a medical subspecialty in response to deinstitutionalization and other large-scale forces, resulting in large numbers of psychiatric patients presenting to emergency departments. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 contains several features and provisions that are likely to impact the practice of EP. This article reviews and examines the impact of the ACA on psychiatric emergency care to date and anticipated in the near future.

Detection and classification of suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury behavior in emergency departments.

OBJECTIVE: The degree of concordance between clinical and standardized assessments in the detection and classification of suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury behavior in psychiatric emergency department settings was examined. METHOD: Two hundred fifty-four patients at 3 psychiatric emergency departments between 2007 and 2011 were evaluated by research staff using standardized assessments of suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury behavior. Of 254 patients, 128 (50%) made a recent suicide attempt, 30 (12%) engaged in recent nonsuicidal self-injury behavior, 20 (8%) made a recent suicide attempt interrupted by self or others, and 76 (30%) had other psychiatric symptoms in the absence of recent suicidal or nonsuicidal self-injury behavior. The classifications derived from the standardized assessments using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) nomenclature were compared to clinical assessments independently extracted from emergency department medical records. RESULTS: Agreement between clinical and standardized assessments was substantial for both suicide attempts (κ = 0.76, P < .001) and nonsuicidal self-injury behavior (κ = 0.72, P < .001). Importantly, 18% of patients determined to have made a suicide attempt in the past week by standardized assessment were not identified as such by clinical assessment. In addition, as measured by the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, the potential lethality of attempts for patients classified as making a recent suicide attempt by both clinician and standardized assessments was significantly greater (t120 = 2.1, P = .04) than that for patients who were classified as having made an attempt by the standardized but not clinical assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The use of standardized assessment measures may improve sensitivity and accuracy of identifying suicidal behavior and nonsuicidal self-injury behavior in psychiatric emergency departments.

Older Adults with Mental Disorders: What Factors Distinguish Those Who Present to Emergency Departments for Mental Health Reasons from Those Who Do Not?

OBJECTIVE: To identify among older adults with mental disorders factors associated with those who present to emergency departments (EDs) for mental health reasons versus those who do not. METHODS: The authors conducted a secondary, cross-sectional analysis of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), which comprises a representative sample of the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population. Of the MEPS participants ages 66 and older on December 31 of the survey years 2000-2005, the analysis sample (2,757) included the 177 persons with at least one mental health ED visit and the 2,580 persons with mental disorders without such a visit. The three categories of the Andersen behavioral model for healthcare services utilization-predisposing, enabling, and need factors-were used as the theoretical framework for the independent variables. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis indicated that four need factors (adjustment disorder [OR: 3.42], psychosis [OR: 2.68], fair perceived physical health status [OR: 2.24], and anxiety disorder [OR: 1.85]) and two predisposing characteristics (widowed and living alone [OR: 1.68] and female [OR: 1.56]) were significantly associated with older adults with mental disorders who present to an ED for mental health reasons. Good perceived mental health status (OR: 0.55) was protective against presenting to an ED. CONCLUSION: EDs that serve populations with higher proportions of older persons that are women, widowed and living alone, with adjustment disorder, psychosis, anxiety disorders, or fair perceived physical health should expect to have a greater likelihood of older persons visiting the ED for mental health reasons.

Brief Intervention and Follow-Up for Suicidal Patients With Repeat Emergency Department Visits Enhances Treatment Engagement.

We implemented an innovative, brief, easy-to-administer 2-part intervention to enhance coping and treatment engagement. The intervention consisted of safety planning and structured telephone follow-up postdischarge with 95 veterans who had 2 or more emergency department (ED) visits within 6 months for suicide-related concerns (i.e., suicide ideation or behavior). The intervention significantly increased behavioral health treatment attendance 3 months after intervention, compared with treatment attendance in the 3 months after a previous ED visit without intervention. The trend was for a decreasing hospitalization rate.

Rationale and study protocol for a two-part intervention: Safety planning and structured follow-up among veterans at risk for suicide and discharged from the emergency department.

There are no evidence-based, brief interventions to reduce suicide risk in Veterans. Death by suicide is a major public health problem. This article describes a protocol, Suicide Assessment and Follow-up Engagement: Veteran Emergency Treatment [SAFE VET], developed for testing the effectiveness of a brief intervention combining a Safety Planning Intervention with structured follow-up (SPI-SFU) to reduce near-term suicide risk and increase outpatient behavioral health treatment engagement among Veterans seeking treatment at Veteran Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) emergency departments (EDs) who are at risk for suicide. In addition to describing study procedures, outcome measures, primary and secondary hypotheses, and human subjects' protection issues, the rationale for the selection of SPI-SFU as the intervention is detailed, as are safety considerations for the unique study setting and sample.

Screening for sexual orientation in psychiatric emergency departments.

INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to explore whether emergency department (ED) patients would disclose their sexual orientation in a research evaluation and to examine demographic and clinical characteristics of patients by self-identified sexual orientation. METHODS: Participants (n=177) presented for psychiatric treatment at three urban EDs in New York City, Rochester, NY, and Philadelphia, PA. Participants were interviewed in the context of a larger study of a standardized suicide risk assessment. We assessed participants' willingness to answer questions regarding sexual orientation along three dimensions: a self-description of sexual orientation, a self-description of sexual attraction, and the gender of any prior sexual partners. RESULTS: No participants (0/177) refused to respond to the categorical question about sexual orientation, 168/177 (94.9%) agreed to provide information about prior sexual partners, and 100/109 (91.7%) provided information about current sexual attraction toward either gender. Of all 177 participants, 154 (87.0%) self-identified as heterosexual, 11 (6.2%) as bisexual, 10 (5.6%) as gay or lesbian, and 2 (1.1%) indicated they were not sure. As compared with heterosexual patients, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) patients were significantly younger and more likely to be non-white, but did not differ significantly in terms of education, income, employment, or religious affiliation or participation. Further, LGB participants did not differ from self-identified heterosexual participants for lifetime suicide attempt rate or lifetime history of any mood, substance-related, psychotic spectrum, or other Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) Axis I disorder. Of self-identified heterosexual participants 5.6% (5/89) reported sexual attraction as other than 'only opposite sex,' and 10.3% (15/142) of sexually active 'heterosexual' participants reported previous same-gender sexual partners. CONCLUSION: Assessing patients' sexual orientation in the ED by a three-question approach appeared feasible in the ED and acceptable to ED patients. However, since many patients have sexual experiences not suggested by simple labels, self-report of sexual identity alone may not inform clinicians of health risks inherent in same or opposite gender sexual contact.

Safety Planning for Military (SAFE MIL): rationale, design, and safety considerations of a randomized controlled trial to reduce suicide risk among psychiatric inpatients.

Mental health related hospitalizations and suicide are both significant public health problems within the United States Department of Defense (DoD). To date, few evidence-based suicide prevention programs have been developed for delivery to military personnel and family members admitted for psychiatric inpatient care due to suicidal self-directed violence. This paper describes the rationale and detailed methodology for a study called Safety Planning for Military (SAFE MIL) which involves a randomized controlled trial (RCT) at the largest military treatment facility in the United States. The purpose of this study is to test the efficacy of a brief, readily accessible, and personalized treatment called the Safety Planning Intervention (Stanley and Brown, 2012). Primary outcomes, measured by blinded assessors at one and six months following psychiatric discharge, include suicide ideation, suicide-related coping, and attitudes toward help seeking. Additionally, given the study's focus on a highly vulnerable patient population, a description of safety considerations for human subjects' participation is provided. Based on this research team's experience, the implementation of an infrastructure in support of RCT research within DoD settings and the processing of regulatory approvals for a clinical trial with high risk suicidal patients are expected to take up to 18-24 months. Recommendations for expediting the advancement of clinical trials research within the DoD are provided in order to maximize cost efficacy and minimize the research to practice gap.

An emergency department-based brief intervention for veterans at risk for suicide (SAFE VET).

Reducing deaths from veteran suicide is a public health priority for veterans who receive their care from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and those who receive services in community settings. Emergency departments frequently function as the primary or sole point of contact with the health care system for suicidal individuals; therefore, they represent an important venue in which to identify and treat veterans who are at risk for suicide. We describe the design, implementation and initial evaluation of a brief behavioral intervention for suicidal veterans seeking care at VA emergency departments. Initial findings of the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention suggest it may be transferable to diverse VA and non-VA settings, including community emergency departments and urgent care centers.

The psychopharmacology of agitation: consensus statement of the american association for emergency psychiatry project Beta psychopharmacology workgroup.

Agitation is common in the medical and psychiatric emergency department, and appropriate management of agitation is a core competency for emergency clinicians. In this article, the authors review the use of a variety of first-generation antipsychotic drugs, second-generation antipsychotic drugs, and benzodiazepines for treatment of acute agitation, and propose specific guidelines for treatment of agitation associated with a variety of conditions, including acute intoxication, psychiatric illness, delirium, and multiple or idiopathic causes. Pharmacologic treatment of agitation should be based on an assessment of the most likely cause of the agitation. If agitation results from a delirium or other medical condition, clinicians should first attempt to treat the underlying cause instead of simply medicating with antipsychotics or benzodiazepines.

Evaluation of an emergency department educational campaign for recognition of suicidal patients.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the impact of a simple emergency department (ED)-based educational intervention designed to assist ED providers in detecting occult suicidal behavior in patients who present with complaints that are not related to behavioral health. METHODS: Staff from 5 ED sites participated in the study. Four ED staff members were exposed to a poster and clinical guide for the recognition and management of suicidal patients. Staff members in 1 ED were not exposed to training material and served as a comparator group. RESULTS: At baseline, only 36% of providers reported that they had sufficient training in how to assess level of suicide risk in patients. Greater than two thirds of providers agreed that additional training would be helpful in assessing the level of patient suicide risk. More than half of respondents who were exposed to the intervention (51.6%) endorsed increased knowledge of suicide risk during the study period, while 41% indicated that the intervention resulted in improved skills in managing suicidal patients. CONCLUSION: This brief, free intervention appeared to have a beneficial impact on providers' perceptions of how well suicidality was recognized and managed in the ED.

The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale: initial validity and internal consistency findings from three multisite studies with adolescents and adults.

OBJECTIVE: Research on suicide prevention and interventions requires a standard method for assessing both suicidal ideation and behavior to identify those at risk and to track treatment response. The Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) was designed to quantify the severity of suicidal ideation and behavior. The authors examined the psychometric properties of the scale. METHOD: The C-SSRS's validity relative to other measures of suicidal ideation and behavior and the internal consistency of its intensity of ideation subscale were analyzed in three multisite studies: a treatment study of adolescent suicide attempters (N=124); a medication efficacy trial with depressed adolescents (N=312); and a study of adults presenting to an emergency department for psychiatric reasons (N=237). RESULTS: The C-SSRS demonstrated good convergent and divergent validity with other multi-informant suicidal ideation and behavior scales and had high sensitivity and specificity for suicidal behavior classifications compared with another behavior scale and an independent suicide evaluation board. Both the ideation and behavior subscales were sensitive to change over time. The intensity of ideation subscale demonstrated moderate to strong internal consistency. In the adolescent suicide attempters study, worst-point lifetime suicidal ideation on the C-SSRS predicted suicide attempts during the study, whereas the Scale for Suicide Ideation did not. Participants with the two highest levels of ideation severity (intent or intent with plan) at baseline had higher odds for attempting suicide during the study. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the C-SSRS is suitable for assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical and research settings.

Physical restraints in the emergency department and attendance at subsequent outpatient psychiatric treatment.

While an estimated 8.5% of psychiatric patients treated in emergency departments require physical restraint, the impact of restraint on attendance at post-discharge outpatient psychiatric appointments has not been investigated. This study evaluated two groups of patients aged 18 or over: 1) 67 individuals who presented voluntarily or involuntarily (being brought in by the police) to the emergency department and who were physically restrained in the course of clinical care, and 2) a comparative group of 84 individuals who presented involuntarily but were not restrained. Perception of quality of care, recollection of the restraint episode, and attendance at follow-up outpatient appointments were compared between these two groups. Of the 151 patients, 33% were from minorities, 45% were female, and the median age was 36 years (range of 18 to 77 years). Both minority race and use of physical restraints were related to less frequent attendance at the prescribed outpatient psychiatric appointment, based on multivariate logistic regression (odds ratios of 0.40 and 0.38, respectively). Although physical restraint may sometimes be necessary to manage aggression and agitation in the emergency department, being restrained appears to be associated with decreased likelihood of attending prescribed outpatient follow-up mental health treatment. Clinicians should consider alternatives to physical restraints whenever possible to minimize impact on treatment compliance after discharge from the emergency department.