Beyond The New Drug Headlines

A new psychiatric medication gets approved, social media starts buzzing, and suddenly the question lands in the exam room: “Should I take this?” We want to slow that moment down. A headline about a new mechanism of action is interesting, but it does not answer the real clinical question: where does this treatment fit for the person sitting right in front of us, with their diagnosis, goals, risks, and real life constraints.

We walk through a practical, evidence-based way to evaluate new medications for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, starting with the FDA label. What is it actually approved to treat? Which age group? Is it meant to be used alone or with other meds? From there, we zoom into clinical trials and talk honestly about how controlled study settings differ from community mental health and routine outpatient care where adherence varies, stressors happen, insurance changes, and follow-up is less frequent.

We also dig into communication, because many clients now research medications on Google, Reddit, and personal blogs before we finish the visit. We share how to respect that curiosity while clarifying the difference between personal stories and clinical evidence, how to interpret long side-effect lists with real context, and why the teach-back method can make a plan safer and easier to follow. Finally, we focus on tolerability over time and what “success” truly means, not just on a rating scale but in sleep, connection, functioning, and quality of life as defined by the client.

Podcast, Newsletter & More 

https://linktr.ee/Dr.LoriKumarDNP

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

Episode Welcome And The Headline Problem

Dr. Lori Kumar 0:03

Hello, and welcome to Unpacking Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder with Dr. Lori Kumar. I'm your host, Dr. Lori Kumar. And today we are going to talk about something that comes up more and more often in psychiatric practice. A new medication is approved, a new clinical trial is released, and the headlines start circulating online. Maybe this medication works through a different mechanism of action. Or we hear that it could offer another new option for people who have not yet responded well to the medications that we already have. And naturally we become interested, and our clients become interested too. Today I want us to slow down and talk about how we should think about this conversation, because a new medication receiving attention is only the beginning of the conversation. Once we move past the headline, we still have to understand what was studied, what improved, which adverse effects occurred, who participated in the trial, and how that evidence may translate into our everyday clinical practice. And most importantly, we have to decide whether that medication actually fits the client who is sitting right in front of us. And that's really not a simple decision. In psychiatry, we need new options. Many of our clients continue to experience symptoms despite treatment. Some improve partially, but not enough. And others respond really well, but experience adverse effects that make the medication difficult for them to continue. I work in community mental health. Many of the clients that I see have already tried several of the medications. Sometimes it feels like we're taking the same pieces of the puzzle and trying to fit them in in a different way. So when a new treatment becomes available, I absolutely think there is a reason for hope. But hope and evidence have to work together. We do not want to dismiss innovation because it's new, but at the same time, we don't want to assume that a medication is going to be the answer for every one of our clients simply because it received approval or it's receiving a lot of attention.

When Clients Google Meds

Dr. Lori Kumar 2:35

For us as prescribing clinicians, the real question is not only is this medication new, the real question is, where does this treatment fit? During my client meetings, conversations about new medication rarely begin with a research paper. Nowadays, clients will pull out their phone with information that they found online. We may be sitting together discussing a possible new medication change, and before I know it, the client already is typing the name of the medication into Google. And then within a few seconds, they may already be looking at Reddit, a personal blog, maybe like a social media post, and then of course a long list of possible side effects. Sometimes the information they find is accurate, and sometimes it's based just on one person's experience. Sometimes the information is incomplete, frightening, or presented without any context. Honestly, at first, I used to be slightly offended, but now I do not feel that way. I do not think we should automatically view that search as a bad thing. The client is showing interest. They want to understand what they are putting into their body. They may want to participate more actively in the decision. They may also be looking for an answer because something about their current treatment is not working as well as they hoped. That gives us an opportunity. Instead of saying, don't look that up, we can help them understand what they are reading. We can explain the difference between a personal experience and clinical evidence. We can also show them why a long list of possible adverse effects does not mean every person will experience every effect. We can also talk about why it matters how often an adverse effect occurred, how severe it was, and whether it also occurred in the placebo group. But before we explain that information clearly to our clients, we as clinicians

Teachback For Clear Medication Plans

Dr. Lori Kumar 4:45

have to understand it ourselves. Reading a medication label or evaluating a clinical trial is not only an academic exercise. We need to know the evidence well enough to translate it. We also need to consider how the patient learns. What is their level of health literacy? Are there cognitive concerns? Are we using language that they can or can't understand? And maybe the most important part, can they explain the plan back to us in their own words? This is called the teachback method. Rather than asking, do you understand? And receiving a quick yep, we might say, I know that was a lot of information. Can you tell me how you understood the plan so that I can make sure I explained it clearly? That does not test the client. It tests how well we communicated as providers. Some clients may also benefit from having a family member or a caretaker or a support person involved. Others may benefit from having written information that they can take home and review after the appointment. The goal is not to overwhelm our clients with every little detail of the prescribing information. The goal is to make sure they can understand enough to participate meaningfully in that decision.

Why New Options Matter

Dr. Lori Kumar 6:10

Let's talk about why new options in psychiatry matter. There are different levels of comfort when new trends become available. Some clinicians are comfortable considering new medications fairly early. And others prefer to wait until there is some more real-world evidence. And others of us feel more comfortable staying with the medications that we've used for years. I do not necessarily think that one of these approaches is always correct. New does not automatically mean better, and older doesn't automatically mean outdated. The important part is understanding why we are choosing a treatment and whether the evidence supports that decision. Psychiatric treatment continues to evolve because our current options still have limitations. A medication may reduce hallucinations or delusions, but can cause significant weight gain. A medication that helps stabilize a mood episode may also leave the client feeling slowed down or emotionally disconnected. And another medication may work really well clinically, but be very difficult to obtain because of insurance coverage. Sometimes we have medications that address the symptoms we can see most clearly, but they do not fully address cognition, motivation, functioning, or quality of life. There are still major unmet needs in schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and other serious mental illnesses. That is why new mechanisms and new approaches are so important. They give us more ways to think about the illness. A new medication may eventually give us more ways to personalize treatment. But a new mechanism of action is not the same as a guaranteed better outcome. Scientific interest is one part of the discussion. Clinical fit is another.

Start With The Medication Label

Dr. Lori Kumar 8:21

When we have a new medication that becomes available, the first place we want to start is the label. The label gives us the foundation. It tells us what the medication is actually approved to treat. That may sound very basic, but it is extremely important. Our clients usually do not come into the office asking, what is the exact FDA-approved indication for this medication? They're more likely to say, Well, I saw this medication online, or my friend takes it, and we have the same symptoms. Can I take it too? The problem is that similar symptoms can occur across several psychiatric conditions. Difficulty concentrating can happen with ADHD, depression, anxiety, and mood episode. Similar to how psychosis can occur with schizophrenia, substance abuse, or medical illness. The presence of one overlapping symptom does not automatically mean the same medication is appropriate. The label helps us place the medication into a more specific clinical context. There are several questions that we should explore. Is it approved for schizophrenia? Acute mania? Bipolar depression, maybe maintenance treatment? Is it intended to be used alone or in combination with another medication? What age group is it approved for? Adults, adolescents, geriatrics? These distinctions affect how we interpret the evidence. Acute treatment and maintenance treatment are not necessarily the same. For example, a medication approved for one phase of bipolar disorder may not be approved for every phase. We also need to understand when we are discussing an FDA-approved use and when we are discussing an off-label prescribing use. Off-label prescribing occurs in psychiatry, and in some situations it can be clinically appropriate. But we should still be clear about what is included in the label and what falls outside of it. The label is not the entire clinical decision. It is where we build the foundation. Once we know what the medication was approved to do, we can move into the clinical trials and look at how the evidence was developed.

Trials Versus Everyday Practice

Dr. Lori Kumar 10:49

Let's talk about clinical trials and real-world clients. I do have some experience around clients participating in clinical trials, and the trial environment is very different from routine clinical practice. In a clinical trial, the process is highly structured. The participants receive the same assessment, they're asked the same questions, and the procedures are followed very closely. The medications, symptoms, adverse effects, and their follow-up visits are documented very carefully. Depending on the trial, the participants may be seen several times in a week. There are specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. If someone repeatedly misses visits or is unable to follow the study's requirements, they may not remain in the trial. And that structure is necessary. It helps researchers answer a specific scientific question as accurately as possible. But when we move outside of the clinical trial setting and back into our everyday clinical practice, the environment changes. I may see a client every four weeks, if I'm lucky every two weeks, and a lot can happen during that time. They may miss medication dosages. They can also experience a major life stressor. Their sleep can also change, or they may move somewhere else. They may also start a medication from a different clinician, or their family support may change. Some people experience adverse effects, but they don't connect it with the medication. Or they decide they're feeling much better and that they no longer need treatment. The real world is not controlled. That does not mean that we should lose confidence in clinical trial evidence. What it means is we should understand what the evidence can and what it cannot tell us. We should understand how closely the trial population resembles the people that we actually treat. That does not require us to reject the results when the populations are different. It only requires us to apply more clinical judgment. One dress does not fit everyone. The same is true with the medication. A medication can be effective and still not be the right fit for the person who's sitting right in front of us. Our setting also changes what we need from a medication. In an acute inpatient setting, our immediate priorities may be safety, stabilization, severe agitation, or psychosis. We may also need an option that can help quickly and be administered reliably in that environment. In an outpatient medication plan, it has to survive outside of the hospital. The client has to be able to get the prescription. The medication has to be covered or affordable. And the dosing schedule has to be realistic. The client also has to be able to tolerate the medication while returning to their daily life. What helps stabilize someone during a crisis may not always be the best option long term. Age also affects clinical fit. A medication we might consider for an adolescent may not be the same medication we choose for our geriatric client. With our older clients, we may be paying closer attention to if they're falling, if they feel dizzy, if they have any issues with their cognition. Several of their medications can cause constipation or other medication interactions. With our younger clients, we may be considering development, school, family involvement, especially their long-term metabolic health, and we want to make sure that it's approved for their age group. Family support can make a huge difference. A client may have difficulty remembering medication or recognizing early changes in their symptoms. A reliable family member may help with the medication schedule, observing changes, and also communicating concerns with the treatment team. Medical illness can also change a plan very quickly. A medication that made sense several months ago may need to be paused, adjusted, or even replaced after a significant medical

What Success Looks Like For Clients

Dr. Lori Kumar 15:24

event. So now we have the data for who our client is. Once we understand who participated in the trial, we need to understand what the researchers were measuring. Most clinical trials have a primary endpoint. That is the main outcome the study was designated to evaluate. In psychiatry, the primary endpoint may be a change in standardized system rating scales. These scales are important. They allow researchers to measure change in a consistent way across participants. But in practice, I do not only want to know whether a symptom score improved, I want to know whether our client is sleeping, if they feel less frightened about their symptoms. Do they feel like they can connect with other people? And that they're moving toward a life that they want to live. That does not mean every client has to return to work or to school for us to call the treatment successful. We have to meet them where they are. For one client, success may mean returning to work. And for some, it may mean avoiding another hospitalization. A symptom rating scale gives us important information, but it does not define an entire outcome. A statistically significant result can tell us that the difference between the groups was unlikely to be explained by chance under the study's analysis. It does not automatically tell us how meaningful that difference will feel for every client. And that is why we have to translate the study results into real life for our clients.

Side Effects Over Time

Dr. Lori Kumar 17:12

Let's talk about safety and tolerability in real practice. Improvement of symptoms is only one part of the medication conversation. We also have to understand what the client experiences while taking it. Side effects are common. Sometimes they appear very quickly, but other times they do take a longer time to recognize. Sometimes the client is experiencing a side effect, but it doesn't feel important at that time until another part of their life. For example, sexual side effects. When a client who is severely depressed comes in, libido may not be the first concern that they have. They may be focused on getting out of bed, reducing hopelessness and helplessness, and just making it through their day. If the depression begins to improve and the client starts feeling more like themselves, sexual functioning may become important again. And at that point, they may recognize a side effect that they did not identify earlier. Heat intolerance works in a similar way. If a client is staying home most of the time, they may not realize how much the medication affects their ability to tolerate heat. But when they finally get out, they start feeling better and they want to work or exercise, then that side effect may suddenly interfere with their recovery. And with our geriatric clients, we have to look at the complete medication picture. They may already have constipation before we prescribe another medication that could make it worse. They may already be at a risk for falls, they may already have cognitive concerns, and they may be taking several medications that contribute to anticholinergic burden. For these clients, the side effect may not be happening in isolation. This is why it is so important to screen for adverse effects at every single medication visit. We should not assume that no complaint means no problem. Some clients may not know that what they are experiencing is related to the medication, or they may feel too embarrassed to bring it up. Some may think that they are expected to tolerate the side effects because the medication is doing so good at helping them feel better. Some of the most important information I hear during my medication visits begins with the client saying, the medication is helping, but that sentence should get our attention. It may mean that the medication is effective, but not sustainable. It could also mean that we need to adjust the dose or we might need to treat a side effect. It could also mean that we may need a different medication. Talking with our client about the benefits and risks that matter to them most is so important. Even when a treatment is effective and tolerable, we still have to ask whether it remains workable over time. Acute care teaches us whether we can stabilize someone. Long-term outpatient care teaches us whether that treatment remains tolerable, accessible, and sustainable. A medication can look very different across several months or several years than it did within the first few weeks. Some clients remain very loyal to medications that help them regain stability. They may feel nervous about changing the medication or lowering the dose, even when we have a clinical reason to reconsider it. That fear makes sense. If someone has experienced severe mania, psychosis, debilitating symptoms, they may not want to risk returning back to that place. We can be that bridge for them. We should continue reviewing whether the medication and the doses are still appropriate. What happened before when the dose was lowered? How severe were their episodes before, and how often did they occur? And what was the medication originally intended to treat? And what are the current risks of continuing it or changing it? Long-term treatment is not simply about continuing the same plan forever. It is also not about stopping medications automatically when the client begins to feel better. Maintenance decisions depend on a diagnosis, reoccurrence history, severity of previous episodes, treatment response, adverse effects, and the client's preferences. Symptom control, relapse prevention, and functional recovery are related, but they are not identical. A client may no longer be acutely manic or psychotic, but they may still be struggling with cognition, confidence, and returning back to their daily activities. Stabilization is an important outcome.

Three Takeaways For Prescribers

Dr. Lori Kumar 22:22

Before we close, I want to leave us with three practical takeaways. First, we need to learn what is behind the headline. A medication being new or working through a different mechanism of action is interesting, but it's not enough for us to determine clinical fit. Second, we need to communicate accurate and consistent information. A client may see several clinicians across different settings. They should not receive completely different explanations of the same medication depending on who is speaking with them. There will always be room for individual clinical judgment, but our basic explanation for the evidence should be clear, accurate, and consistent. And third, we need to let the client help define treatment success. As clinicians, we may think that success means returning back to work or going to the gym. And these may be important goals, but they may not be the client's first priority. We need to meet our clients where they are and understand what meaningful improvement looks like to them. New psychiatric treatments give us reasons to be helpful. They may expand our options and may help us understand serious mental illness in a different way. New treatments may offer another path for clients who have not yet received enough benefit from the treatments we currently use. We need to look beyond the announcement. We need to understand the label, but also the trial in our client. A medication can look excellent on paper, and it can perform very well in a carefully controlled clinical trial. But the best medication on paper is not always the best medication for the person who is sitting in our office. That final decision requires evidence, clinical judgment, and collaboration. Until next time, let's continue looking beyond the headlines, asking thoughtful questions, and unpacking what new psychiatric evidence means for the people that we serve.

Closing Thoughts Beyond Headlines

Dr. Lori Kumar 24:42

I'm Dr. Lori Kumar, and this is Unpacking Schizophrenia and Bipolar Disorder.