Harvard Review of Psychiatry最新文献

Learning objectives: After participating in this CME activity, the psychiatrist should be better able to:• Compare and contrast therapies used in combination with transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for treating MDD.

Background: Noninvasive neuromodulation, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), has emerged as a major area for treating major depressive disorder (MDD). This review has two primary aims: (1) to review the current literature on combining TMS and tDCS with other therapies, such as psychotherapy and psychopharmacological interventions, and (2) to discuss the efficacy, feasibility, limitations, and future directions of these combined treatments for MDD.

Method: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched three databases: PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library. The last search date was December 5, 2023.

Results: The initial search revealed 2,519 records. After screening and full-text review, 58 studies (7 TMS plus psychotherapy, 32 TMS plus medication, 7 tDCS plus psychotherapy, 12 tDCS plus medication) were included.

Conclusions: The current literature on tDCS and TMS paired with psychotherapy provides initial support for integrating mindfulness interventions with both TMS and tDCS. Adding TMS or tDCS to stable doses of ongoing medications can decrease MDD symptoms; however, benzodiazepines may interfere with TMS and tDCS response, and antipsychotics can interfere with TMS response. Pairing citalopram with TMS and sertraline with tDCS can lead to greater MDD symptom reduction compared to using these medications alone. Future studies need to enroll larger samples, include randomized controlled study designs, create more uniform protocols for combined treatment delivery, and explore mechanisms and predictors of change.

Abstract: Adolescents seeking gender-affirming medical care (GAMC) face numerous barriers that may delay or inhibit their access to these services. Such obstacles include mental health professional (MHP) assessment requirements prior to initiating GAMC. MHP letters ultimately carry little benefit for patients. Their formulaic nature discourages nuance, reduces likelihood of capturing gender embodiment goals (beyond a narrow definition of gender dysphoria), and may cause clinicians to overlook presenting mental health concerns. MHP assessment requirements also reinforce the conception of gender dysphoria as a mental health disorder. Moreover, studies have not shown that requiring MHP assessment letters effectively reduces regret among patients. Fortunately, primary clinicians who provide GAMC are most often capable of assessing patients without additional input from an MHP. In this article, we provide an ethical framework for clinicians that prioritizes patient autonomy through an informed assent approach. We discuss Appelbaum's criteria and its application, and contexts in which MHP consultation is appropriate. We also address common questions about informed assent among clinicians, patients, and families. Finally, we advocate for bolstering multidisciplinary support teams involved in GAMC to facilitate the informed assent process. This approach upholds patient autonomy, expands access to GAMC, and utilizes the mental health workforce more effectively.

Abstract: Since the inclusion of gender identity disorder in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III), psychiatry and the broader medical field have made substantial alterations in their recognition of and respect for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) identities. As this recognition continues to expand, psychiatrists should be aware of both historical harm and current best care practices, especially in light of psychiatric morbidity in TGD populations relative to the general population. This article contextualizes the history of psychiatry's engagement with TGD patients and presents the gender minority stress and resilience model to frame the mental health disparities experienced by TGD people. We envision a role for psychiatry that goes beyond gatekeeping gender-affirming hormone therapy and surgeries. Instead, we should invest in equitable care across the continuum of mental health needs. We provide an overview of existing literature to help characterize psychiatric epidemiology for this population, with the goal of offering guidance on how psychiatrists can deliver responsive and high-quality care for TGD people. Some key areas of proposed clinical improvement include culturally tailoring interventions for substance use disorders, reducing medical trauma in acute psychiatric care settings, and better understanding the interplay of psychopharmacology and gender-affirming hormone therapy.

Learning objectives: After participating in this CME activity, the psychiatrist should be better able to:• Categorize and describe different types of abnormal involuntary movements (AIMs).• Identify assessment tools and treatment options for AIMs.

Abstract: Abnormal involuntary movements (AIMs) comprise a diverse group of movement disorders characterized by uncontrolled and unintended movements (e.g., tremors, tics, dystonia). AIMs can occur at any stage of life and pose significant challenges for clinicians. It is difficult to determine their underlying causes due to the complex neurobiological mechanisms involved. Therefore, it is crucial to quantify the severity and progression of AIMs using well-validated measurement scales, such as the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS). By employing reliable assessment approaches, clinicians can objectively evaluate the motoric manifestations of AIMs and track them over time. Treatment of AIMs varies depending on their nature and etiology. While AIMs often respond to treatment, serious side effects can undermine treatment efficacy. In this clinically focused narrative review, we categorize different types of AIMs and discuss their neurobiological aspects. Further, we emphasize the importance of using well-validated measurement scales for accurate assessment and discuss available treatment modalities that target the specific AIMs manifestations. Additionally, we cover the need for comprehensive care to address the multifaceted nature of AIMs, accounting for their physical manifestations as well as their psychological, social, and functional toll on patients. By embracing a multidisciplinary approach, health care professionals can provide patient-centered care that promotes overall well-being and enhances the lives of patients coping with AIMs. Regular follow-up assessments are necessary to monitor treatment response, adjust medications when needed, and provide ongoing support for individuals affected by AIMs.

Abstract: The culture around personality disorder treatment has changed drastically in the past generation. While once perceived as effectively untreatable, there are now numerous evidence-based treatment approaches for personality disorders (especially borderline personality disorder). The questions, however, of who should be matched to which treatment approach, and when, remain largely unanswered. In other areas of psychiatry, particularly substance use disorders and eating disorders, assessing patient treatment readiness is viewed as indispensable for treatment planning. Despite this, relatively little research has been done with respect to readiness and personality disorder treatment. In this article, we propose multiple explanations for why this may be the case, relating to both the unique features of personality disorders and the current cultural landscape around their treatment. While patients with personality disorders often face cruel stigmatization, and much more work needs to be done to expand access to care (i.e., our system's readiness for patients), even gold-standard treatment options are unlikely to work if a patient is not ready for treatment. Further study of readiness in the context of personality disorders could help more effectively match patients to the right treatment, at the right time. Such research could also aid development of strategies to enhance patient readiness.

Anecdotal evidence of superior efficacy and lack of extrapyramidal symptoms in treating schizophrenia made clozapine a promising therapy in the United States during the early 1970s. In 1975, however, numerous fatal cases of clozapine-related agranulocytosis in Finland nearly ended the drug's development. Convinced of the significant benefits to patients, some clinicians in the United States advocated having clozapine available on a case-by-case humanitarian basis, which eventually helped resurrect the drug for Food and Drug Administration approval in 1989. This article builds on previous literature by utilizing oral histories from clinicians, researchers, and a patient's family member to understand how clozapine was saved. Exploring these stakeholders' perspectives has value to modern clinicians, who underprescribe the drug despite demonstrable benefits for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and suicide prevention.

Learning objectives after participating in this cme activity, the psychiatrist should be better able to: • Explain the steps required for diagnosis of mental disorders in diagnostic handbooks.• Identify current procedures for classifying and reporting prolonged grief disorder.

Abstract: Prolonged grief disorder (PGD) was added to the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases in 2018 and to the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in its 2022 text revision. Thus, reporting and classifying PGD according to established guidelines has become fundamental for scientific research and clinical practice. Yet, PGD assessment instruments and criteria are still being developed and debated. The purpose of this article is to examine the adequacy of current procedures for classifying and reporting PGD in research and to suggest guidelines for future investigation and dissemination of knowledge. We outline the standard steps required for diagnosis and assessment of a mental disorder (notably, the administration of clinical interviews). In order to illustrate reporting about the presence/prevalence of PGD in recent scientific articles, we conducted a search of Scopus that identified 22 relevant articles published between 2019 and 2023. Our review of the literature shows that standard classification procedures are not (yet) followed. Prevalences of PGD are based on self-reported symptomatology, with rates derived from percentages of bereaved persons reaching a certain cutoff score on a questionnaire, without clinical interviewing. This likely results in systematic overestimation of prevalences. Nevertheless, the actual establishment of PGD prevalence was often stated in titles, abstracts, and results sections of articles. Further, the need for structured clinical interviews for diagnostic classification was frequently mentioned only among limitations in discussion sections-but was not highlighted. We conclude by providing guidelines for researching and reporting self-reported prolonged grief symptoms and the presence/prevalence of PGD.