Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-30T15:44:32.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The shocking attitude toward electroconvulsive therapy in Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 December 2020

Carlo Ignazio Cattaneo*
Affiliation:
Department of Mental Health Novara, ASL Novara, Borgomanero, Italy
Francesca Ressico
Affiliation:
Department of Mental Health Novara, ASL Novara, Borgomanero, Italy
Michele Fornaro
Affiliation:
Department of Neurosciences, Section of Psychiatry Napoli, Federico II University Hospital, Campania, Italy
Giuseppe Fazzari
Affiliation:
Clinica P.T.C., Mood Center, Brainstimulation Italia, Brescia, Italy
Giulio Perugi
Affiliation:
Psychiatry 2 Unit, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
*
*Author for correspondence: Carlo Ignazio Cattaneo Email: dr.carloignaziocattaneo@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Editorial
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

The recent factious and misleading opinion paper by Read et al,Reference Read and Kirsch 1 corroborated by a handful of commentaries such as the one by BentalReference Bentall 2 deserves some considerations, emphasizing the Italian scenario.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) was introduced and successfully delivered by two Italian scientists and clinicians, Lucio Bini and Ugo Cerletti, in 1938. The amazing efficacy on serious life-threatening cases of melancholia, psychotic and delirious mixed states, and catatonia was so evident that it spread within a couple of years to all of Italy and the rest of the world. Since then, hundred thousands of lives have been saved despite the quality of clinical studies is “not good enough” to convince Read et al that ECT is “effective for its target.”

The ECT-contrasting ideology surged in the 1970s, ignited by the anti-psychiatric movement lead by Basaglia in Italy.Reference Foot 3 At that time, the Italian asylums were considered the source of psychiatric illnesses themselves, which were not accredited with a biological origin. Thus, neuro-modulatory interventions and pharmacotherapy were deemed as accessory treatments, and ECT was considered a brutal torture, 4 on the basis of emotional considerations. Consequently, the neglect of the biological underpinning of psychiatric disorders besides the contributing psychosocial factors invariably led to harsh criticism and fierce request for the abolishment of the ECT practice over the past decades.

It is worth remembering that ECT was delivered alongside anesthesia and myorelaxation in most hospitals by the end of the 1950s. Paradoxically, the anti-psychiatric movements would not have witnessed a progressive discharge and de-institutionalization of most psychiatric patients without the progressive release of effective medications (eg, chlorpromazine/haloperidol for psychosis and lithium and the monoamine-oxidase inhibitors [MAOIs] for mood disorders), and ECT, indeed.Reference Healy 5 , Reference Shorter and Healy 6 Worrisome, the MAOIs and most first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) have been likewise objected and gradually discontinued due to unduly concern, both in Italy and elsewhere.Reference Cattaneo, Fornaro, Ressico and Perugi 7

On the other side, psychiatry desperately tried to reach the “status” of a full-medical science, at the risk of neglecting its complexity, promoting an evidence-based medicine (EBM) approach focused on the randomized controlled trial (RCT) approach.Reference Ghaemi 8 While relevant, the RCT approach (and the meta-analysis based on such study design) poorly fit specific interventions, especially when the special populations at study (eg, treatment-resistant patients) are low in numbers, or they present complex comorbidity which are rarely captured by the stringent criteria adopted by RCTs. Also, the EBM approach does not fit the life-saving treatments, such as defibrillation, the efficacy of which is supported by the routine practice rather than statistics; similar considerations may apply to ECT.Reference Gillman 9 The research for something new in psychiatry often misled to the idea that the “new” could necessarily replace the “old,” thus determining the underemployment of relevant drugs such as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), lithium, MAOIs, or FGAs, just for the sake of (often slightly more favorable) tolerability and safety profiles despite much lower efficacy of several newer agents compared to the established ones.Reference Trupin 10

The efficacy of ECT for a variety of psychiatric conditions, especially catatonias, peripartumReference Rundgren, Brus and Bave 11 depression and geriatric depression, delirious mania, treatment refractory schizophreniaReference Sanghani, Petrides and Kellner 12 and possibly more, is supported by well-grounded clinical evidence.Reference Baghai and Möller 13 , Reference Van der Wurff, Stek, Hoogendijk and Beekman 14 The safety and tolerability of modern ECT greatly improved compared to the past due to enhanced procedures (eg, electrode displacement and anesthetic routines). Moreover, the ECT therapeutic effect is often more rapid and longer-lasting than the one provided by the sole pharmacotherapy.Reference Faedda, Becker, Baroni, Tondo, Aspland and Koukopoulos 15 While several promising neuromodulatory interventions other than ECT received attention in literature in recent years, especially the noninvasive brain stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and vagus nerve stimulation, their efficacy is not conclusive,Reference Amad, Jardri and Rousseau 16 especially compared to that of ECT.Reference Baghai and Möller 13 ECT has a strong dose–response linear correlation and a definitive correlation between the time of exposure and the subsequent effect.

Unfortunately, although ECT fulfills both core scientific criteria of plausible treatment- effect correlation, in all guidelines the role of ECT is minimized and is proposed as a “second” or “third-line” option to be applied to pharmaco-resistant patients only. In this perspective, ECT is hardly ever conceived as an early option, independently from the severity or the variety of the clinical presentation. Many practitioners do not consider ECT before multiple medications have been attempted, a process that may span many months or even years and leave the patient seriously ill and dysfunctional for a prolonged period of time.Reference Beale and Kellner 17 This in spite of the evidence that the length of the episode is one of the variables frequently associated with reduced rates of response to all treatments including ECT.Reference Perugi, Medda, Zanello, Toni and Cassano 18 On the contrary, the available literature supports the preferential use of ECT compared to pharmacotherapy when the patient is at the high end of the severity and is clearly urgently or emergently ill. In such cases, ECT should be considered early on, perhaps before any medication trial. Situations that compel the use of ECT as a “first line” intervention are: active suicidal ideation and behavior, severe weight loss, malnutrition or dehydration with subsequent worsening of the medical status, psychosis accompanied by agitation.Reference Kellner, Greenberg, Murrough, Bryson, Briggs and Pasculli 19 In these patients, pharmacological treatments with antipsychotics and antidepressants are not only ineffective, but are frequently associated with complications such as chronicity, mood destabilization, and suicidality. Finally, with an appropriate monitoring, the treatment is very safe with a very low incidence of serious adverse events. Considering the neurologic and metabolic burden of side effects associated with long-term use of complex pharmacologic regimens with SGAs, antidepressants and mood stabilizers, ECT should be considered a safe option with a very low incidence of serious adverse events and long-term no-mood destabilizing effect.

While we feel that every opinion matters, it is worth noticing that Read et alReference Read and Kirsch 1 and Peter Breggin,Reference Bentall 2 are resolute anti-medication and anti-ECT psychologists, they have limited, or even virtually no first-hand experience as ECT prescribers. Moreover, the meta-analysis conducted by Read et alReference Read and Kirsch 1 deserves criticism. While about one million people receive ECT worldwide annually,Reference Leiknes, Schweder and Høie 20 there is a broad heterogeneity in treatment delivery and settings. Most of the confounding factors affecting the efficacy of ECT cannot be controlled. This is particularly true, considering that no placebo-controlled RCT was conducted since 1985, according to the meta-analysis in point.Reference Gillman 9 The case for using ECT rests on five meta-analyses that concluded it is superior to a sham intervention.

They all draw on data from 11 small trials (average number of patients 37), suggesting the chance of a “small-study effect.” Of these, four reported a significant ECT effect, five found no difference, and two had mixed results. Two described follow up, with only near-zero or small effect sizes. The meta-analysis did not address the many limitations of these trials, including their low quality and the incomplete description of randomization and blinding in seven, with none providing convincing evidence they were truly double-blinded. Five reported their findings selectively. Only four included outcomes reported by patients, and none assessed quality of life. That sort of reportReference Ioannidis 21 is damning in its conclusions about the EBM for ECT,Reference Leiknes, Schweder and Høie 20 concluding there is no evidence of efficacy during or beyond the treatment period in any target patient groups. Indeed, several clinically relevant hallmarks, such as the history of pharmacological resistance (expected in real-world practice), are not covered. Given the “high risk of memory loss and the low risk of death,” the authors call for ECT immediate suspension until more robust evidence shows whether it is of benefit.Reference Gillman 9 The authors claim that the publication bias and low quality of the methods preclude any firm conclusion about the efficacy of ECT. In this view, we feel that the opposite claim (conclusive lack of efficacy) does not stand up likewise.

Unsurprisingly, such review was nonetheless well received in countries like Italy, where the stigma against ECT is still high.Reference Buccelli, Di Lorenzo, Paternoster, D’Urso and Graziano 22 Even though the national and regional Law in Italy does not ban ECT (yet with strict regulations in some regions), few public and private centers practice it and cannot meet the patients’ needs. This is particularly true comparing the Italian scenarioReference Abbiati, Broglia and De Micheli 23 against other European settings,Reference Verdura, Vera and Sanz-Fuentenebro 24 and worldwide.Reference Leiknes, Schweder and Høie 20

The National Bioethical Committee, the most relevant institution appointed to provide an ethical judgment of the treatments, favors ECT. Several scientific societies likewise do, including many leading clinicians in the field and brilliant clinical researchers. ECT is a life-saving intervention, especially for severe catatonias or highly suicidal patients. The suspicion of enduring stigma driven by political or ideological prejudices could not be ruled out.

In the 1990s and until his death (2013), Dr. Athanasios Koukopulos led a movement in favor of ECT reintroduction, which unfortunately had no success.Reference Reginaldi, Koukopoulos and Baldessarini 25 Nowadays, the only university center supplying ECT is the University of Pisa: if the academic community steps back from ECT, its teaching to the new generation of clinicians and clinical researchers blunts away.

The new generation of Italian psychiatrists do not know, or worse, have prejudices about ECT; they have never seen it being practiced, nor have they studied it, nor have attended lectures about it unless they had the chance to practice abroad or to get in touch with the previous generations of expert clinicians. Consequently, they are not familiar with the identification of life-threatening syndromes such as catatonia or delirious mood states. Today, in Italy, it is likely that an indefinite number of these patients are not recognized and end up in infectious disease or neuro-rehabilitation wards, without receiving a treatment that, according to the available data, would be effective in more than 80% of cases.

Thus, the present paper is meant as a plea for further academic attention toward the practice of ECT in Italy, a warning toward a critical appraisal of the evidence, especially when it is flawed, and a reinforcing message to practice in the real-world setting managing severe patients before making “science” an ideological pitfall which may ultimately harm the suffering ones.

Disclosures

Cattaneo Carlo Ignazio has acted as consultant of Janssen, Lundbeck, Ecupharma. He received grant/research support from Lundbeck, Janssen and Ecupharma. He is on the speaker/advisory board of Janssen, Lundbeck.

Prof. Perugi Giulio has acted as consultant of Lundbeck, Angelini, FB-Health. He received grant/research support from Lundbeck and Angelini. He is on the speaker/advisory board of Sanofi-Aventis, Lundbeck, FB-Health, Angelini.

Ressico Francesca, Fornaro Michele, and Fazzari Giuseppe have no conflicts of interest or financial disclosures to report.

References

Read, J, Kirsch, I, McGrath L. Electroconvulsive therapy for depression: a review of the quality of ECT versus Sham ECT trials and meta-analyses. Ethical Hum Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;21(2):64103.10.1891/EHPP-D-19-00014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentall, R. A commentary on Read, J., Kirsch, I., & McGrath, L. (2020). Electroconvulsive therapy for depression: a review of the quality of ECT versus sham ECT trials and meta-analyses. Ethical Hum Psychol Psychiatry. 2020;21:64103. http://cepuk.org/2020/06/04/guest-blog-by-richard-bentall-ect-is-a-classic-failure-of-evidence-based-medicine/YH6M.Google Scholar
Foot, J. Franco Basaglia and the radical psychiatry movement in Italy, 1961–78. Crit Radic Soc Work. 2014;2(2):235249.10.1332/204986014X14002292074708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passione R. Psychiatry in an international context: Ugo Cerletti and the case of electroshock. Hist Psychiatry Italian. 2004;15(57 Pt 1):83104.10.1177/0957154X04039347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, DT. The psychopharmacological era: notes toward a history. J Psychopharmacol. 1990;4(3):152167.10.1177/026988119000400310CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shorter, E, Healy, D. Shock Therapy: A History of Electroconvulsive Treatment in Mental Illness. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
Cattaneo, CI, Fornaro, M, Ressico, FV, Perugi, G. Commentary letter on “Revitalizing monoamine oxidase inhibitors: a call for action”. CNS Spectrums. 2020;25(4):458459.10.1017/S1092852919001378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghaemi, SN. The rise and fall of the biopsychosocial model. Br J Psychiatry. 2009;195(1):34.10.1192/bjp.bp.109.063859CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillman, K. Mar 23, 2019 Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). For whom? https://psychotropical.com/electroconvulsive-therapy-ect-for-whom/.2019 Google Scholar
Trupin, S. Nov 20, 2017 Don’t cast aside an effective antidepressant just because it’s old. https://www.statnews.com/2017/11/20/antidepressant-maoi-depression/comment-page-1/.2019 Google Scholar
Rundgren, S, Brus, O, Bave, U, et al. Improvement of postpartum depression and psychosis after electroconvulsive therapy: a population-based study with a matched comparison group. J Affect Disord. 2018;235:258264.10.1016/j.jad.2018.04.043CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanghani, SN, Petrides, G, Kellner, CH. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in schizophrenia: a review of recent literature. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2018;31(3):213222.10.1097/YCO.0000000000000418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baghai, TC, Möller, H-J. Electroconvulsive therapy and its different indications. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2008;10(1):105 10.31887/DCNS.2008.10.1/tcbaghaiCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Wurff, F, Stek, M, Hoogendijk, W, Beekman, AT. The efficacy and safety of ECT in depressed older adults: a literature review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2:CD003593 Google Scholar
Faedda, GL, Becker, I, Baroni, A, Tondo, L, Aspland, E, Koukopoulos, A. The origins of electroconvulsive therapy: Prof. Bini’s first report on ECT. J Affect Disord. 2010;120(1–3):1215.10.1016/j.jad.2009.01.023CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amad, A, Jardri, R, Rousseau, C, et al. Excess significance bias in repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation literature for neuropsychiatric disorders. Psychother Psychosom. 2019;88(6):363370.10.1159/000502805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beale, MD, Kellner, CH. ECT in treatment algorithms: no need to save the best for last. J ECT. 2000;16(1):12.10.1097/00124509-200003000-00001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perugi, G, Medda, P, Zanello, S, Toni, C, Cassano, GB. Episode length and mixed features as predictors of ECT nonresponse in patients with medication-resistant major depression. Brain Stimul. 2012;5(1):1824.10.1016/j.brs.2011.02.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellner, CH, Greenberg, RM, Murrough, JW, Bryson, EO, Briggs, MC, Pasculli, RM. ECT in treatment-resistant depression. Am J Psychiatry. 2012;169(12):12381244.10.1176/appi.ajp.2012.12050648CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leiknes, KA, Schweder, LJ, Høie, B. Contemporary use and practice of electroconvulsive therapy worldwide. Brain Behav. 2012;2(3):283344.10.1002/brb3.37CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ioannidis, J. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485514.10.1111/1468-0009.12210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Buccelli, C, Di Lorenzo, P, Paternoster, M, D’Urso, G, Graziano, V. Niola Electroconvulsive therapy in Italy: will public controversies ever stop? J ECT. 2016;32(3):207211.10.1097/YCT.0000000000000301CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abbiati, V, Broglia, D, De Micheli, A, et al. La terapia elettroconvulsiva: revisione critica del suo utilizzo in Italia. Bollettino della Società Medico Chirurgica di Pavia. 2010;123(4):725732.Google Scholar
Verdura, E, Vera, I, Sanz-Fuentenebro, J. Regional variations in ECT use in Europe. Abstr 23rd Eur Congr Psychiatry. 2015;30(S1):1 Google Scholar
Reginaldi, D, Koukopoulos, A, Baldessarini, RJ, et al. Transitions: Athanasios Koukopoulos [AθανάσιΟς κΟυκόπΟυλΟς], MD (1931–2013). Int J Bipolar Disorders. 2013;1:17 10.1186/2194-7511-1-17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaplin, S. ECT meta-analyses ‘wrong’ about efficacy. https://www.progressnp.com/news/ect-meta-analyses-wrong-about-efficacy/. 2020 Google Scholar