An Anecdote About “Supportive” Psychotherapy

I just read Dr. George Dawson’s excellent blog post on supportive psychotherapy (“Supportive Psychotherapy—The Clinical Language of Psychiatry.” If you’re looking for an erudite and humanistic explanation of supportive psychotherapy, I think you’re unlikely to find anything superior to Dr. Dawson’s essay.

Now, about my take on “supportive” psychotherapy—there’s a reason why the word supportive is wrapped in quotes. It’s because I have a sort of tongue in cheek anecdote about it based on my experience with a staff neurologist in the hospital. It was long enough ago that I’m not sure what level of training I was in exactly. I was either a senior medical student or a resident doing a rotation on an inpatient neurology unit.

Dr. X was staffing the neurology inpatient service and I happened to overhear a brief conversation he had with the psychiatry consultants about what approach to adopt with a patient who he believed had a gait problem due to a psychological conflict. He wanted a psychological approach, preferring something on the psychodynamic side. I remember the psychiatric consultant said flatly, “We’re pretty biological.” I can’t remember what their recommendation was, but he disagreed. Later in the day, Dr. X gathered all of the trainees and we rounded on the patient in his hospital room.

We all crowded into the room with the patient, who had a severe problem walking due to what seemed to be unexplained hemiparesis. This is where the “supportive” element of Dr. X’s approach to psychological treatment came in.

Whether due to a deformity or past injury (I can’t recall which), Dr. X walked with a pronounced limp. He asked the patient if he would be willing to try walking vigorously with him across his room. Dr. X promised to assist him up and made it very clear that, despite his own limp, he was going to walk with the patient as normally as possible, together using both their legs.

The patient was very hesitant. Dr. X offered a lot of reassurance and encouragement—and then hoisted him up out of bed and marched with him across the room, ensuring that the only way this could happen was if he used both legs. The scene was comical, Dr. X limping but strongly moving in one direction while hauling the patient along with him.

The patient did it—twice and with increasing speed while obviously using both legs, never collapsing to the floor while Dr. X effusively praised him. He looked embarrassed and also seemed genuinely grateful for this miraculous cure. I was impressed.

I’m calling this a form of supportive psychotherapy partly in jest, but also to make a point about what support can mean, both literally and figuratively speaking, under certain circumstances according to how differently trained health care professionals might define psychiatric help.

Later in my career as a psychiatric consultant in the general hospital, I often found that many medical generalists and specialists preferred patients with these kinds of afflictions be transferred to psychiatric wards.

I don’t recall Dr. X ever suggesting that.

The personal identities of both doctor and patient were de-identified.

Thoughts About Psychedelic Assisted Psychotherapy

I read the Psychiatric Times article “FDA Issues CRL to Lykos for MDMA-Assisted Therapy.” The short story is that the FDA essentially told the drug company Lykos that their study of the efficacy of MDMA-assisted treatment of PTSD needs more work.

I tried to wade through the on-line documents of the FDA’s meeting on June 4, 2024. There are hundreds of pages and I didn’t go through every page of the transcript. The minutes were succinct and much easier to digest.

I’m going to simply admit that I’m biased against using psychedelics in psychiatry for personal and professional reasons. I’m not a research scientist. I’m a retired consultation-liaison psychiatrist. I saw many patients with a variety of psychiatric diagnoses including PTSD and substance use disorders. I’m not opposed to clinical research in this area, but I’m aware of the difficulty of conducting it.

In that regard, I want to also admit that I’m very susceptible to being influenced by a former colleague’s remarks about the quality of the research in question in the Lykos study. Dr. Jess G. Fiedorowicz, MD, PhD formerly was formerly on staff at University of Iowa Health Care. He’s now the Chief of Mental Health at The Ottawa Hospital where he’s also Professor and Senior Research Chair in Adult Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ontario. His remarks in the transcript are typical for his erudition and expertise as a clinician scientist.

It’s difficult to wade through the pages of the FDA transcript and I couldn’t digest all of it, by any means. But if you’re interested in reading both sides of this issue, it’s a good place to get the best idea of the committee members’ thinking about it. The minutes are much easier to read and provide a succinct summary.

I realize the Psychiatric Times article editor doesn’t agree with the FDA recommendations for further study of psychedelic-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD. It may or may not influence the University of Iowa’s study of psilocybin. In my opinion, the FDA did the right thing.

New Compound MM-120 Related to LSD Gets FDA Nod

I saw the story in Psychiatric Times about the compound MM-120, which the FDA recently granted breakthrough designation. MM-120 is related to LSD. Breakthrough designation is defined by the FDA as, “…a process designed to expedite the development and review of drugs that are intended to treat a serious condition and preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over available therapy on a clinically significant endpoint(s).”

The compound is made by the company MindMed. This is not to be confused with mind meld, a Star Trek thing related to Vulcans like Spock who can do this telepathic touch thing. The MindMed organization made MM-120 to help treat people who suffer from Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Their study shows the drug could be used as a standalone treatment for the disorder.

According to one story about it published in the December issue of Drug Discovery and Development, it’s not likely MM-120 will be stocked in pharmacies next to the antihistamines and decongestants. The authors believe it would be more likely included in a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) program.

This brings back nightmares about the Clozapine REMS program, which many psychiatrists found almost impossible to enroll in several years ago because of glitches in the web-based application. In fact, the FDA was still not happy with it a couple of years ago, to the extent they had to “temporarily exercise enforcement discretion” over aspects of the program.

Anway, the article goes on to say that the drug has a pretty good safety profile, although concede that the study found the higher dose of MM-120 led to “…perhaps some more challenging experiences….” There were no incidents of suicidal or self-injurious behavior.

I wonder what the “challenging experiences” were, exactly. After all, MM-120 is basically LSD, which was invented in 1938 by the Swiss chemist, Albert Hofmann. He was doing research into crop fungus. He thought it could be used to treat mental illness, even after he accidentally ingested some of it and hallucinated a future in which a guy named Timothy Leary would advise everyone to “turn on, tune in, drop out.”

That whole fungus research issue reminds me of the still unsettled question of how a whole town in France got higher than a kite (leading to some deaths) back in 1951. Ergot poisoning was the initial theory, although later somebody believed it might have been perpetrated as a secret LSD experiment by the CIA. I think the mystery is still unsolved.

However, there is also the history of MK-Ultra, which apparently actually was a classified CIA project running during the Cold War which involved giving LSD to certain unlucky subjects, some of whom didn’t know they were getting it—with disastrous results in some cases.

Just to let you know, I don’t suspect there is some conspiracy between extraterrestrials and the pentagon to get the world population so confused on LSD that we start believing all those crop circles are being created by two guys using a board and a rope. Forget what Agent Mulder says.

My Two Cents on the Involuntary Treatment of Tuberculosis and Psychiatric Illness

By now many of us have seen the news headline about the person in Washington state who was arrested and sent to jail for noncompliance with a court order for treatment of tuberculosis. This led to my searching the literature about the connection between court-ordered treatment for psychiatric illness and court-ordered treatment for tuberculosis in Iowa. I’m not assuming that the person who is the subject of the news story has psychiatric illness.

I’m a retired consultation-liaison psychiatrist and the issue of how to respond to patients who refuse treatment for tuberculosis arose maybe once in my career. When the Covid-19 pandemic began a few years ago, I thought of the Iowa code regarding involuntary quarantine of patients infected with Covid-19 infection. I thought it was a situation similar to that of persons infected with tuberculosis. That was an issue for the hospital critical incident management team to deal with.

I found an article relevant to both internal medicine and psychiatry. It is entitled “Can Psychiatry Learn from Tuberculosis Treatment?” It was written by E. Fuller Torrey, MD and Judy Miller, BA and published in Psychiatric Services in 1999. The authors point to the directly observed therapy (DOT) programs in place in several states, including Iowa. Such programs can include positive reinforcement incentives such as fast-food vouchers and food supplements, movie passes and more. They credit the New York experience using DOT with reducing the tuberculosis rate by 55%.

Torrey and Miller point out that many psychiatric treatment programs didn’t offer as many incentives as DOT programs for treatment of tuberculosis. They also say that a “credible threat of involuntary treatment, essential for the success of DOT” often is absent from psychiatric programs.

I was puzzled by their view because of what I saw from our own integrated multidisciplinary program of assertive community treatment (IMPACT) at The University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, which started well before they wrote the article. My impression is that it has been very successful. The Iowa Code covers the role of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization in the event of noncompliance as a result of uncontrolled psychiatric symptoms leading to danger to self or others or inability to provide for basic self-care needs.

On the other hand, because of my background in consultation-liaison psychiatry, I wondered about how we might treat someone with both tuberculosis and severe psychiatric illness, the latter of which could make treatment of the former difficult or even impossible.

We can use long-acting injectable antipsychotics to treat those with chronic schizophrenia. They’re not uniformly effective, but they play an important role in acute and maintenance therapy.

But I also forgot about how tuberculosis treatment could be administered to those unwilling to take it voluntarily. I rediscovered that tuberculosis treatment can be given by injection, if necessary, although it’s usually intended for treatment-resistant disease. On the other hand, scientists created a long-acting injectable drug for tuberculosis which was effective in animal studies and which could be a delivery system for non-adherent patients.

And I thought about who would be the responsible authority for administering tuberculosis medications on an involuntary basis. It’s not psychiatrists. It turns out that in most states, including Iowa, the local public health officer is in charge. The CDC has a web page outlining suggested provisions for state tuberculosis prevention and treatment.

Patients with tuberculosis who refuse treatment can be confined to a facility, although it’s not always clear what that facility ought to be. Certainly, I would be concerned about whether a jail would be the best choice.

I don’t have a clear answer for an alternative to incarceration. Would a hospital be better? General hospitals are not secure and there would not be an ideal way to prevent the patient from simply walking away from a general hospital ward. If the patient has a comorbid severe psychiatric illness that interferes with the ability to cooperate with tuberculosis treatment, then maybe a locked combined medical-psychiatric unit (MPU) would be the better choice. Arguably, while an MPU might not be the best use of this scare resource, it’s probably more likely to have a negative pressure isolation room for a patient with both tuberculosis and psychiatric illness. I co-attended with internal medicine staff on The University of Iowa Hospital’s MPU for many years. There are rigorous criteria for establishing such units. The best expert in integrated health care systems I know of would be a former teacher and colleague of mine, Roger Kathol, MD. He is currently the head of Cartesian Solutions.

I’m aware that just because someone refuses treatment for tuberculosis doesn’t necessarily mean a psychiatric illness is present. The critical issue then could become whether or not the patient has the decisional capacity to refuse medical treatment. The usual procedure for checking that would include assessing understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and the ability to make a choice. You don’t necessarily need a psychiatrist to do that. Further, there are nuances and recent changes in the decisional capacity assessment that can make the process more complicated. The New York Times article published in early May of this year, entitled, “A Story of Dementia: The Mother Who Changed,” makes that point based on a real-life case in Iowa, involving psychiatrists at The University of Iowa.

It occurs to me, though, that just because a person is able to pass a decisional capacity assessment doesn’t necessarily make a decision to refuse tuberculosis treatment OK. Letting someone expose others to infection when effective treatment is available doesn’t sound reasonable or safe.

That’s my two cents.

Quenard F, Fournier PE, Drancourt M, Brouqui P. Role of second-line injectable antituberculosis drugs in the treatment of MDR/XDR tuberculosis. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017 Aug;50(2):252-254. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.01.042. Epub 2017 Jun 5. PMID: 28595939.