With the increasing number of new brain stimulation techniques now available and on the horizon, does electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) still have a role? As clinicians and researchers we say most definitely “yes”. ECT is the most effective and rapidly acting treatment for severe forms of depression and other disorders. Transcranial magnetic stimulation has shown promise but mainly for less severely ill and less treatment resistant patients. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) has shown promise for the more resistant cases but its invasiveness limits its use. Results from only ∼50 patients treated worldwide are available and at present it is not approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for depression. Vagus nerve stimulation, less invasive than DBS but still a surgical procedure, is presently FDA approved for acute treatment resistant depression but published efficacy rates fall short of those seen with ECT. Therefore, there continues to be an important role for ECT in the treatment of severe psychiatric disorders. But will ECT always be there when our patients need it? Somewhat unexpected recent developments at the FDA may impact the future availability of ECT to severely depressed patients. Here we provide background on the classification of ECT devices, the FDA reclassification process, and the process for providing FDA input in these critical deliberations.

The recent shootings at Ft. Hood, allegedly by an army psychiatrist, have placed much needed focus on army mental health care. Questions are now being raised as to whether longstanding and severe shortages in the number of mental health professionals in the army may have led authorities to overlook danger signals in this psychiatrist, failing to remove him in order to retain a worker with rare and valuable psychiatric credentials for army service. Whether or not this is the case, examination of mental health care in the army shows a system that is indeed understaffed, under tremendous pressure, and near the breaking point.

Background: Inadequate response to antidepressant monotherapy in women with major depressive disorder is common. Testosterone administration has been shown to be an effective augmentation therapy in depressed hypogonadal men with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-resistant depression. However, the effects of low-dose testosterone as augmentation therapy in women with treatment-resistant depression have not been studied.

Methods: Low-dose transdermal testosterone (300 mcg/day, Intrinsa, Procter and Gamble Pharmaceuticals) was administered to nine women with treatment-resistant depression in an 8 week open-label pilot protocol.

Results: There was a statistically significant improvement in mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) scores at 2 weeks, sustained through the 8 week period. Two-thirds of subjects achieved a response to the treatment (decrease in MADRS score of ≥50%) and 33% achieved remission (final MADRS score <10) after 8 weeks of therapy. Mean levels of fatigue, as measured by the MADRS lassitude item, significantly decreased at all time points with a mean 38% decrease from baseline to 8 weeks.

Conclusion: These preliminary pilot data suggest that low-dose transdermal testosterone may be an effective augmentation therapy in women with treatment-resistant depression. Further studies are warranted.

Objective: To determine the adequacy of pharmacotherapy received by patients with newly-diagnosed obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), based on current practice guidelines.

Methods: A 9 year (1997–2006) retrospective claims analysis of adults enrolled in Florida Medicaid for at least 3 continuous years was conducted to determine the percentage who received both a minimally effective duration (≥ 8 continuous weeks) and dose of first-line OCD pharmacotherapy during the year following their first (“index”) OCD diagnosis.

Results: Among 2,960,421 adult (≥ 18 years of age) enrollees, 2,921 (0.1%) were diagnosed with OCD. Among the 2,825 OCD patients without comorbid Asperger syndrome or autism, 843 had newly-diagnosed OCD and at least 12 months of follow-up data after their index diagnosis. Among these 843 patients, 588 (69.7%) received first-line OCD pharmacotherapy but only 323 (38.3%) received a minimally effective pharmacotherapy trial in the year following their index diagnosis.

Conclusions: Among clinically-diagnosed persons with OCD (<10% of those with the disorder), a minority of newly-diagnosed patients receive a minimally effective pharmacotherapy trial consistent with current standards of care. Reasons such as limited patient adherence and/or physician awareness of guidelines must be identified and redressed to ameliorate the patient, healthcare system, and economic burdens associated with OCD.