impossibility…

Posted on Saturday 7 March 2015

As the comments rolled in on the post about the British Psychological Society‘s Report [back to the drawing board…], my mind was wandering. I was thinking about how similar the topics of contention sounded to the ones I heard 40 years ago when I arrived.  Then I clicked on PsychiatricNews, and this article [from the RAND Corporation] jumped up at me:
PsychiatricNews
by Vabren Watts,
March 3, 2015
&
Psychiatric Services in Advance:
Economic Grand Rounds
by Zachary S. Predmore, Soeren Mattke,, Marcela Horvitz-Lennon
January 2, 2015

Absract: This column presents findings of an analysis conducted to quantify the potential net savings to state budgets from interventions to improve adherence to antipsychotic drugs among patients with schizophrenia. Using a financial model based on published data, the authors estimated costs of direct medical care and criminal justice system involvement at state and national levels and validated it against findings from other cost studies. The model estimated an annual cost of $21.4 billion [in 2013 dollars] to Medicaid programs and other state agencies for people with schizophrenia. On the basis of data on the effect on outcomes of increased medication adherence, better adherence could yield annual net savings of $3.28 billion to states or $1,580 per patient per year. Innovations to improve adherence to antipsychotic drugs among schizophrenia patients can yield substantial savings in state budgets. States should consider interventions shown to increase medication adherence in this patient group.
[A Deinstitutionalization Timeline]. In the 1970s, as psychiatry residents, we still heard lofty lectures from administrative types about deinstitutionalization as a great triumph, and in some ways it was. But the part we saw didn’t look that way.   It was called the revolving door – chronic patients in the cycle of psychotic episode ···» hospitalization ···» stopping medication ···» another psychotic episode ···» another hospitalization ···»

… and around and around it went. They were closing a huge hotel. In Georgia, it was Central State Hospital AKA Milledgeville with 12,000 patients, with no place in the community that could absorb its occupants, particularly when psychotic. And so we heard a lot about medication compliance and depot medications. These mostly non-medical planners talked like psychotic illness is a medication deficiency syndrome. So, here we go again – as in "interventions shown to increase medication adherence":
Research has shown that several interventions improve antipsychotic adherence among persons with schizophrenia. Some of these studies have also provided direct evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these interventions. A recent study of patients with schizophrenia in the United Kingdom demonstrated that even small financial incentives [less than $25 per patient per month] increased adherence to antipsychotic medications from a baseline of 69% to 85%…

Replacing traditional oral therapy with long-acting injectable [LAI] antipsychotics has been shown to increase adherence… Thus using generic LAI antipsychotics could save more than $1,000 per patient per year…

Medication management programs, such as counseling by pharmacists or advanced practice nurses, are another potential method for increasing adherence. Two specific medication management programs — cognitive adaptive training, which attempts to change patients ’ behavior by modifying their home environment through use of signs, alarms, and checklists, and electronic medication monitoring, a computerized system that reminds patients to take their medications and tracks adherence — have also been shown to increase adherence to antipsychotics among patients with schizophrenia to 92%, compared with 73% adherence in the group that received treatment as usual…
Were I a patient reading that, I would likely be offended, maybe even wounded. "You think we stop medications in droves because we’re dumb, or forgetful? Why don’t you try taking it all the time!" And if you read the APA guidelines [1], medication adherence is in the background of many of the recommendations. And the IRT training Manual [3] for the NIMH/SAMHSA RAISE program spends no small amount of time trying to encourage medication adherence as in cooperation with treatment as in relapse prevention:

  1. Guideline Watch [APA  2009]
  2. and from the NIMH RAISE Project [now adopted by SAMHSA]
And what about Tardive Dyskinesia? This from the European Schizophrenia Study of over 7000 patients on medications for three years:
And so it has gone throughout history – the problem of Schizophrenia, of the psychotic states. Everyone has a solution for the part of the problem they are involved with themselves, and wants to overlook the other side of the coin. In this case, the RAND group is looking at the cost of recidivism to the State budgets [a very real problem], suggesting a policy that the mental health advocates will surely oppose [with very real examples of negative consequences]. And if you think about it, paying sick people to take medicine does have a bizarre ring to it. In this Rand example, the proposed solution is for society, not necessarily a given patient.

In my view, these are problems that have no general solution at present. If I hadn’t been a Straw Man in these discussions so frequently [I should say Straw Psychiatrist], I could work up a real dander about this report/recommendation. Instead, I’ve developed a hobby to occupy myself during debates of this kind – some way to silence my mind [and mouth] to keep me out of a dead-end discussion. I think about the impossibility of the problem as framed [I think that’s called being a contrarian if you say it out loud], or about why trying to answer it is a double bind. And I particularly try to think about the cases being brought up as exceptions as people wax eloquently pro and con. I tell myself that such reflections remind me of the essential impossibility of psychotic experience and illness; they remind me that the only real solutions come on a case by case basis and they are tentative; and thinking privately keeps me out of run-on arguments that I don’t want to be in. But sometimes, I find an opinion in there that seems right to me. This may be one of those times. This scheme has been tried, and it just didn’t work…

And I worry about this – a lot…
Dr. Mattke has received speaker fees and travel support from Janssen Diagnostics. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Janssen makes RISPERDAL® CONSTA and now INVEGA® SUSTENNA® – leading LAIs…
  1.  
    March 7, 2015 | 2:38 PM
     

    Mickey,

    In all of these conversations people seem to completely ignore the community psychiatry movement and the gaol of keeping people out of hospitals and living independently in their own homes or apartments. My first job was working with a team with an ACT team and during my three year tenure we reduced the time in hospital from 28 days per person to less than 2 and cut the medication requirement by 40%. A lot of TD improves or disappears when people realize that more things can be done in crises than increase the medication and what reasonable doses of medication really are.

  2.  
    March 7, 2015 | 3:00 PM
     

    George,

    My first job too. Same results. And if given moderate resources, it could happen again. It’s not happening down here very much these days. At least not like it did before we passed the low water mark…

  3.  
    ed
    March 7, 2015 | 3:50 PM
     

    I see it as ironic that the system we have at present, in which psychiatrists too often fail to do comprehensive evaluations and establish a meaningful relationship with patients; also fail to gain patient medication compliance. To some extent, this may make less harmful than they otherwise might be the problems of inaccurate diagnoses, over medication, lack of effectiveness and/or excessive side effects of the prescribed medications, .

  4.  
    March 7, 2015 | 4:49 PM
     

    It’s not “ironic” at all.

    It is a business model of care and it is called “cost effective” and it is poor quality. By the time people see me they have seen several “prescribers” and several therapists. They have taken many medications that they could have avoided including medications that I would have never prescribed. They don’t know what their diagnosis or more realistically what their real problem is. None of the previous prescribers was treating them with any concern about side effects or how the drug interacts with their medical diagnoses. They often are not as concerned about their hypertension and cardiac status as I am.

    We have managed care systems right now that are doing mass screening for depression with a checklist that can be done in 5 minutes or less and an antidepressant prescription follows.

    We have a system of inadequate care provided by the managed care industry and governments at all levels that keep people away from comprehensive evaluations (and treatment) by psychiatrists.

  5.  
    Bernard Carroll
    March 7, 2015 | 8:01 PM
     

    Well said, George. In the business model of care patients are commodities to be processed.

    Thanks to Mickey for calling attention again to the issue of tardive dyskinesia. In the early days of the ‘atypicals’ or second generation antipsychotic drugs (SGAs) there were no data to speak of on TD except for some European suggestions that clozapine might treat TD arising from exposure to the old drugs. By sleight of hand, in the early 1990s that idea morphed into the notion that the incidence of TD was minimal with the SGAs. As the data Mickey shows above tell us, there remains a palpable incidence of TD even with the SGAs, and this problem is compounded by the expansion of indications beyond psychotic disorders. I have pushed back especially on the use of SGAs like risperidone and aripiprazole in nonpsychotic patients with so-called treatment resistant depression. By the time millions of these patients are dosed there is a great deal of TD out there.

  6.  
    March 7, 2015 | 8:45 PM
     

    Umm, have our colleagues all forgotten that people with mood disorders are at INCREASED risk for movement disorders with antipsychotics. Gee, I guess the second generation/atypical antipsychotics didn’t get the memo…

  7.  
    March 7, 2015 | 10:16 PM
     

    The timelines from the European Schizophrenia Study [financed by Lilly].



    [note the truncated scale]

  8.  
    Joseph Arpaia
    March 7, 2015 | 10:46 PM
     

    The article by Predmore et al seems seriously flawed. They calculate cost savings using methods which they admit are quite imprecise. So what are the error bars on their estimate? Without those this is not a scientific paper.

    They also forget that there are significant and costly dose-related side effects from antipsychotic medications. In particular obesity and diabetes. In fact, my impression from the literature is that is not clear that all cause mortality and morbidity is changed when patients take high doses of antipsychotics on an ongoing basis. Any gains from the reduction of psychotic symptoms are offset by increases in the cardiovascular consequences of obesity and diabetes.

  9.  
    March 8, 2015 | 6:37 AM
     

    This is all about promotion of the [still patented] long acting anti-psychotic drugs. Leaving aside the fact that there is no clear advantage over the much less expensive haloperidol and fluphenazine decanoate (especially if they are used at appropriately low doses), there is also decent emerging evidence that adherence mainly postpones rather than reduces risk of relapse.
    This study by Gleeson et al from Patrick McGorry’s group found that an intervention aimed at improving adherence worked in the sense that adherence was improved and relapse was reduced in the short term but they also found that there was impaired functional outcome.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22130905
    Wunderink found the same thing.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23824214
    Interestingly, I also found a study which found the same thing. This was from Timothy Crowe’s group in the UK and was done in the 1980’s.

  10.  
    Steve Lucas
    March 8, 2015 | 7:41 AM
     

    Drug compliance = drug company profits. This is true in all of medicine and extends to mandates and standards.

    Compliance is a real problem and changes in medications, both quantity and type, will lead to better outcomes, we need to remember, as Mickey has pointed out, the drug company involvement in this discussion.

    Steve Lucas

  11.  
    wiley
    March 8, 2015 | 2:55 PM
     

    I’ve learned so much here about pharmaceutical companies and their hinky relationship with medicine. Thank you all.

    Late last week I was awakened by a phone call from the V.A.. I was asked to opt for a new dose of Copaxone that only needs to be taken three times a week to “save money” ‘ so that more people could receive more care.’ I too readily agreed, then immediately upon hanging up realized that this was likely a ploy to extend Teva’s patent. In ten seconds of searching, I confirmed that with a recent news article in Haaretz.

    At least, our Supreme Court won’t extend their patent for the daily shots.

    So, tomorrow, I’m going to leave the message that I want to continue with my daily shots. According to a metanalysis I saw recently, none of the drugs used for MS are particularly efficacious. Given the flakiness of the disease and its tendency to progress, I’ll take it anyway in case it is helping, but I’d feel much better about it if I were taking a less screamingly expensive drug.

    If the drug caused all kinds of problems, I might not take it. If it caused a lot of problems and I knew it wasn’t helping, I would stop taking it, as I did with many psyche drugs. I’m not schizophrenic or bipolar, so it’s not quite the same comparison, but there are a whole lot of perfectly good reasons why people with psychotic disorders don’t comply with any given medication.

    The day after the call I thought to wonder if I had talked to an employee of the V.A. or a drug rep. The company sends nurses to train people to give themselves the shots, and in the beginning they send out all kinds of promotional material to encourage people to stay on the drug, and call twice a year. They have a number that can always be reached, and is answered by a human. It is very easy to get free replacement parts for the auto-injector ( I find it more convenient not to use it.) The last time they called and asked if I needed anything I told them that I like the refrigerator magnets, because I like refrigerator magnets. That’s the last call I got. It’s been a few years. I was and am taking the drug without their encouragement, so I really didn’t need or appreciate the “encouragement”.

    Of course, a profitable corporation has more money and resources to encourage continuance and compliance, and even to provide some handy services, and that can be a good thing; but the conflicts of interest are out of control. And the naked attempts to extend the patents and keep the prices up when the cost/benefit ratio is not improved is something that needs to be quelled with vigor, because it drives up the cost of health care so that less care can be provided. When the drugs cause more problems for little benefit, of course…

    I hope the V.A. purchases the generic dailies, instead of falling for this completely. It won’t save money, it will cost more, so they will provide less care.

  12.  
    adam dickes
    March 8, 2015 | 9:12 PM
     

    You said:

    “And so it has gone throughout history – the problem of Schizophrenia, of the psychotic states. Everyone has a solution for the part of the problem they are involved with themselves, and wants to overlook the other side of the coin”

    Thanks Mickey. That’s an incredibly wise statement that really sums up for me our repeated failures to address what seems like an intractable, multi-faceted problem we all desperately want to solve. I’m going to reflect on that all day.

  13.  
    James O'Brien, M.D.
    March 9, 2015 | 11:29 AM
     

    I cannot believe all the nonpsychotic people who are taking drugs like Seroquel or Abilify when there are so many alternatives including completely side effect free supplementation with Deplin and so on. Or add a SARI. Or many other strategies. I put this on doctors (mostly primary care) more than pharma…unfortunately the ultimate solution to this will be a major class action.

    I had no idea Abilify is now number one. Talk about a war on women. I’ll let Dr. Julie Holland finish my argument:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/medicating-womens-feelings.html?_r=2

    The fact that TCAs or even MAOIs are almost never used for depression and Abilify is commonly used for it. Maybe we are collectively insane…that’s the irony. More afraid of a tyramine reaction which probably won’t happen versus multiple TD cases that certainly will? Huh?

    Of course, we’re not really insane, we’ve just allowed ourselves to become stupid.

    By the way, this is one reason I am not on the primary care bandwagon…primary care sounds great until you see how they deal with something in your area of expertise. Not that there aren’t mentally lazy psychiatrists.

  14.  
    James O'Brien, M.D.
    March 9, 2015 | 12:33 PM
     

    I had no idea until this morning that Abilify was number one in sales:

    http://rt.com/usa/204563-abilify-top-grossing-medication/

    Makes one long for the “halcyon days” of Prozac or Valium being number one….

    Frankly, I’m stunned by this. What a screwed up country we have become.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.