Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is characterized by preoccupation with a defect in appearance. Concepts of beauty play a particularly crucial role in humans' mental and social life, and may have specific psychobiologic and evolutionary underpinnings. In particular, there is a growing literature on the neurocircuitry underpinning the body schema, body image and facial expression processing, and aesthetic and symmetry judgments. Speculatively, disruptions in cognitive-affective processes relevant to judgments about physical beauty lead to BDD.

Escitalopram is the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) most recently approved for use in the United States. It is structurally related to citalopram, but is felt to have a more tolerable side-effect profile than its parent compound. Side effects are not generally serious and include headache, diarrhea, and nausea. While hyponatremia and the syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone (SIADH) have been associated with treatment with other SSRIs, there has only been one case of escitalopram-induced SIADH reported in the literature to date. We now report another case of a patient who developed SIADH after being treated with escitalopram for 4 weeks. The patient's hyponatremia improved following the discontinuation of escitalopram. Clinicians should be aware of this uncommon but significant side effect of SSRIs and monitor high-risk patients for the development of SIADH.

The low prevalence of extrapyramidal symptoms associated with atypical antipsychotics has led to their widespread use during the past decade. Aripiprazole, the newest medication in this class, has been associated with extrapyramidal symptoms (eg, akathisia) and with improvement of tardive dyskinesia (TD), but to date it has not been associated with the development of TD. We report a case of TD associated with the use of aripiprazole 15 mg/day for 18 months for refractory depression. Symptoms of TD resolved within several weeks of discontinuation of aripiprazole.

What have you heard or read over the past 10 years that has improved you ability to assess and manage suicide risk in your patients?

There has been a paucity of data. What little data there is reviewed in this month's articles.They highlight findings that you should know about. Clinicians seem to cling to the familiar, unless some intense marketing is done.

For instance, are you aware that the current evidence shows that a denial of suicide thoughts, plans, or intent—even a contract for safety—means absolutely nothing in the absence of a full suicide risk assessment?

Yet clinicians seem to rely on these ’reassurances“ from their patients and are shocked when the patient later commits suicide. Why should a patient who is deciding that life is too painful to live tell you the truth? Robert I. Simon, MD, and Daniel W. Shuman, JD, review these facts.

Are you aware that severe psychic anxiety, panic attacks, agitation, and severe insomnia often precede suicide within hours, days, or weeks and can be rapidly modified with treatment?

On the other hand, standard risk factors for suicide such as suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and past suicidal attempts are not good predictors of suicide in the short term. A suicide plan, recent high intent attempt, or refusal to contract for safety may well indicate immediate risk, but a denial of suicidal ideation or intent and a contract for no harm mean absolutely nothing without a full suicide assessment that takes current clinical status, past suicidal tendencies, social support, and willingness to accept help into account.

Suicide risk assessment is now a core competency requirement in the residency training of psychiatrists.The purpose of suicide risk assessment is to identify modifiable or treatable acute, high-risk suicide factors, and available protective factors that inform patient treatment and safety management.The standard of care varies according to state statutory definitions. Heretofore, most states adopted an average physician or “ordinarily employed standard.” Currently, more states are adopting a “reasonable, prudent physician” standard. No single source or authority defines the standard of care for suicide risk assessment. Evidence-based psychiatry can inform clinicians' suicide risk assessments. Carefully documented risk assessments will assist the courts in evaluating clinicians' decision-making process.

This article presents charts from The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Treatment of Patients with Suicidal Behaviors, part of the Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders Compendium, and a summary of the assessment information in a format that can be used in routine clinical practice. Four steps in the assessment process are presented: the use of a thorough psychiatric examination to obtain information about the patient's current presentation, history, diagnosis, and to recognize suicide risk factors therein; the necessity of asking very specific questions about suicidal ideation, intent, plans, and attempts; the process of making an estimation of the patient's level of suicide risk is explained; and the use of modifiable risk and protective factors as the basis for treatment planning is demonstrated. Case reports are used to clarify use of each step in this process.

Efforts to identify clinical risk factors for complete suicide through the follow-up of depressed patients have yielded relatively few robust predictors. Those identified by at least three studies are (in order of decreasing frequency) suicidal plans/attempts, male sex, being single or living alone, inpatient status, and hopelessness. Because the best established of these predictors has only modest sensitivity and specificity, the need for other robust tools is clear. A rich body of research has identified two biological risk factors for suicide in depressive disorder: hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal axis hyperactivity and deficits in serotonin function. Moreover, there is now considerable evidence that the dexamethasone suppression test and measures of serum cholesterol concentrations, respectively, may provide a clinically useful reflection of these two mechanisms. Observations that these measures appear to be additive, both with each other and with other clinical risk factors, indicate that a substantial improvement in the clinician's ability to assess suicide risk is possible.

Bipolar disorders are prevalent, often severe, and disabling illnesses with elevated lethality largely due to suicide. Suicide rates average ∼1% annually, or perhaps 60 times higher than the international population rate of 0.015% annually. Suicidal acts typically occur early in bipolar disorders and in association with severe depressive or mixed states. The high lethality of suicidal acts in bipolar disorders is suggested by a much lower ratio of attempts:suicide (∼3:1) than in the general population (∼30:1). Risk factors can help to identify patients at increased suicidal risk, but ongoing clinical assessment is essential to limit risk. Empirical short-term interventions to manage acute suicidal risk include close clinical supervision, rapid hospitalization, and electroconvulsive therapy. Remarkably, however, evidence of the long-term effectiveness of most treatments against suicidal behavior is rare. A notable exception is lithium prophylaxis, which is associated with consistent evidence of major (∼80%), sustained relative reductions of risk of suicides and attempts, and lower lethality (increased attempts:suicide ratio). Such benefits are unproved for other treatments commonly used to treat bipolar disorder patients, including anticonvulsants, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and psychosocial interventions. Applying available knowledge systematically, with close and sustained clinical supervision, can enhance management of suicidal risk in bipolar disorders patients.