Search

Daniel A Hoffman1, Mark Schiller2, James M Greenblatt3, Dan V Iosifescu41Neuro-Therapy Clinic Inc, Denver, CO; 2Mind Therapy Clinic, 2299 Post Street, Suite 104A, San Francisco, CA; 3Comprehensive Psychiatric Resources, Waltham, MA; 4Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USAAbstract: There has been a rapid increase in the use of polypharmacy in psychiatry possibly due to the introduction of newer drugs, greater availability of these newer drugs, excessive confidence in clinical trial results, widespread prescribing of psychotropic medications by primary care, and pressure to augment with additional medications for unresolved side effects or greater efficacy. Even the new generation of medications may not hold significant advantages over older drugs. In fact, there may be additional safety risks with polypharmacy being so widespread. Washout, as a clinical tool, is rarely done in medication management today. Studies have shown that augmenting therapy with additional medications resulted in 9.1%–34.1% dropouts due to intolerance of the augmentation, whereas studies of medication washout demonstrated only 5.9%–7.8% intolerance to the washout procedure. These perils justify reconsideration of medication washout before deciding on augmentation. There are unwarranted fears and resistance in the medical community toward medication washout, especially at the moment a physician is trying to decide whether to washout or add more medications to the treatment regimen. However, medication washout provides unique benefits to the physician: it establishes a new baseline of the disorder, helps identify medication efficacy from their adverse effects, and provides clarity of diagnosis and potential reduction of drug treatments, drug interactions, and costs. It may also reduce overall adverse events, not to mention a potential to reduce liability. After washout, physicians may be able to select the appropriate polypharmac

James M Greenblatt1, Craig Sussman1, Mariko Jameson1, Lee Yuan1, Daniel A Hoffman2, Dan V Iosifescu31Comprehensive Psychiatric Resources, Waltham, MA, USA; 2Neuro-Therapy Clinic Inc, Denver, CO, USA; 3Mood and Anxiety Disorders Program, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, NY, USABackground: A retrospective chart review was undertaken in a private clinic to examine the clinical outcomes for patients with an eating disorder comorbid with depression or bipolar illness who underwent a referenced electroencephalographic (EEG) database analysis to help guide medication selection.Method: We examined 33 charts for patients with the primary psychiatric diagnosis of an eating disorder and comorbid major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder who underwent a quantitative EEG database assessment to provide additional information for choices of medication. The current analysis includes data from 22 subjects who accepted treatments based on information from the referenced-EEG medication database. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Clinical Global Impression-Severity, Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, and hospitalization data were examined for these patients.Results: Patients whose EEG data was used for clinical treatment reported significant decreases in associated depressive symptoms (HDRS scores), overall severity of illness (Clinical Global Impression-Severity), and overall clinical global improvement (Clinical Global Impression-Improvement). This cohort also reported fewer inpatient, residential, and partial hospitalization program days following referenced-EEG compared with the two-year period prior to treatment.Conclusion: These findings are consistent with previously reported data for patients with eating disorders and suggest the need for future studies using EEG data correlated with those from other patients with similar quantitative EEG features.Keywords: eating disorders, anorexia, bulimia, depression, referenced-EEG, chart review