Daniel Carlat on Antipsychotic Medications for Agitation in Patients with Dementia

Lately, it seems like all the press about psychiatry in The New York Times is bad. We don't talk to our patients, we over-medicate them all from the children to the elderly, we all get bribes from drug companies. It's not that I don't think that these things don't happen, it's just that I don't like the sensational tones, and the one-sided nature of the presentation of healthys as bad, the generalizations that it's "everyone," and the use of information taken out of context to make our practitioners look bad.

In a May 9th article Gardiner Harris writes:

More than half of the antipsychotics paid for by the federal Medicare program in the first half of 2007 were “erroneous,” the audit found, costing the program $116 million for those six months.

“Government, taxpayers, nursing home residents as well as their families and caregivers should be outraged and seek solutions,” Daniel R. Levinson, inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote in announcing the audit results.

Mr. Levinson apparently feels the government should collect information on diagnoses so correct prescribing can be assessed.

On CNN today, Danny Carlat writes his own response in "In Defense of Antipsychotic Drugs for Dementia."

The story highlights include:

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Daniel Carlat: Report implies evil doctors are giving deadly drugs to nursing home patients
• But antipsychotics are most effective drug for calming agitation in dementia, he writes
• Carlat: No drugs are FDA-approved for this agitation, a terrible condition

Carlat writes:

But in this particular case, the Office of the Inspector General has it wrong, and Levinson's statements on behalf of Health and Human Services reflect an astonishingly poor understanding of the workings of medical care in general and psychiatric care in particular.

The unfortunate fact is that no medications are FDA-approved for the agitation of dementia, and yet the condition is common.

Although it's true that a prescription for antipsychotics to treat agitation in dementia is "off-label," this hardly means they are ineffective or that Medicare claims for these drugs are "erroneous." In fact, large placebo-controlled trials have shown that antipsychotics are the most effective medications for the agitation that often bedevils patients with dementia.

When these drugs are successful, they soothe the inner turmoil that makes life intolerable for these patients, improving their quality of life dramatically.

i before e, except after w?

I mean we're shrinks, we deal with the weird everyday. If anyone knows weird, it's us.

So I get this email from Roy. Stop spelling it "wierd" it's "weird" you have it stuck in your head wrong. He's right and he gave me a long list of places on Shrink Rap where weird is misspelled as 'wierd.' Only they weren't all me. Clink did it a couple of times. Sarebear did it in our comment section. I did it a bunch. This is weird. But it is "i before e except after c"...right? Why is weird spelled weirdly?

Maybe I need a new word. Strange. Unusual. Unconventional. Odd. That's a good one, even I can't spell "odd" wrong.

From Wikipedia:

Old English wyrd is a verbal noun formed from the verb weorþan, meaning "to come to pass, to become". The term developed into the modern English adjective weird. Adjectival use develops in the 15th centrury, in the sense "having the power to control fate", originally in the name of the Weird Sisters, i.e. the classical Fates, in the Elizabethan period detached from their classical background as fays, and most notably appearing as the Three Witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth. From the 14th century, to weird was also used as a verb in Scots, in the sense of "to preordain by decree of fate".

The modern spelling weird first appears in Scottish and Northern English dialects in the 16th century and is taken up in standard literary English from the 17th century. The regular modern English form would have been wird, from Early Modern English werd. The substitution of werd by weird in the northern dialects is "difficult to account for".^[1]

The now most common meaning of weird, "odd, strange", is first attested in 1815, originally with a connotation of the supernatural or portentuous (especially in the collocation weird and wonderful), but by the early 20th century increasingly applied to everyday situations.^[2]

Enough. It's all too weerd. The chinchilla is for Jesse because his preoccupation with the little rodents is kind of ....different.