TO THE EDITOR: Several strategies have been used in attempts to manage treatment-resistant depression. Some strategies include lithium augmentation, liothyronine, and lamotrigine. A combination that has shown efficacy is a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI) with a psychostimulant. When combined with an MAOI, which inhibits neuroamine catabolism, psychostimulants have been associated with severe toxicity including hypertensive crisis and intracranial hemorrhage, severe hyperthermia, seizures, other central effects, and death.We report a case where combination therapy with phenelzine and methylphenidate were used effectively and safely.Case Report. A 31-year-old white woman was admitted to an inpatient mental health unit secondary to suicidal ideations. Her depression symptoms upon admission included hopelessness, insomnia, reduced appetite, reduced concentration and energy, psychomotor slowing, and frequent crying spells. Her recurrent depression had not substantially responded to >50 electroconvulsive therapy treatments (initially with good success in 1996) or methylphenidate augmentation of a novel antidepressant. However, the methylphenidate had aided her concentration at that time. The depression also had not responded to monotherapy trials of paroxetine, sertraline, fluoxetine, venlafaxine, bupropion, and mirtazapine. Axis I diagnoses were major depression, recurrent, severe, as well as attention deficit disorder.On hospital day 1, the patient started phenelzine 15 mg/day (Table 1). On day 4, the phenelzine dose was increased to 15 mg twice daily. On days 5 through 8, methylphenidate 10 mg/day was initiated and increased by adding 2.5 mg at noon daily. On day 6, since the blood pressure (measured 4 times daily) remained within normal limits, phenelzine was increased to 15 mg 3 times daily. The patient's blood pressure remained normal throughout hospitalization. She reported an episode of dizziness that was transient and did not return. On day 9, the patient reported improvement in mood and was discharged on day 10 due to her financial concerns. Her discharge medications were phenelzine 15 mg 3 times daily and methylphenidate 10 mg in the morning and 7.5 mg at noon. Several months after she was discharged, her outpatient therapist reported that the woman was doing well on this combination and had finished her college degree.We dedicate this report to the late Dr. Pio Albert Pol, the treating psychiatrist in this case. His sincere kindness and unwavering commitment to his patients go unparalleled.
Disclaimer In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. Purpose To determine the relationship of advanced pharmacy practice experience (APPE) grading schemes and other pharmacy program variables (ie, program age and funding) with pharmacy residency match rates. Summary A 12-question survey was disseminated to experiential administrators of pharmacy programs in October 2018. Respondents identified their program’s APPE grading scheme (pass/fail, letter grades, or other) and associated pros and cons. Responding programs were categorized by age and funding status. Survey responses were correlated with the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists residency match rates for 2016 through 2018. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models as well as by attributes via thematic analysis. Most pharmacy programs (62%) reported using letter grades for APPEs compared to pass/fail (30%) or other (8%) schemes. Pharmacy programs using pass/fail grading were more likely to have students match to postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) (P < 0.001) and postgraduate year 2 (PGY2) (P = 0.0074) residencies. Older pharmacy programs for each grading scheme were more likely to have higher match rates; however, for PGY1 match rates, older programs utilizing letter grades correlated to lower match rates than those utilizing pass/fail grading (P < 0.0001). Likewise, both public and private pharmacy programs using pass/fail grading had higher PGY1 match rates than those using letter grades (P = 0.0006 and P = 0.0014). Conclusion Pass/fail grading in APPEs does not hinder PGY1 or PGY2 residency placement compared to other grading schemes both overall and in combination with certain pharmacy program variables. Grading scheme strengths and weaknesses should be considered when deciding on optimal assessment strategies for APPEs and when evaluating candidates for residencies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.