User login
Adherence to ADHD meds may lower unemployment risk
Investigators analyzed data for almost 13,000 working-age adults with ADHD and found ADHD medication use during the previous 2 years was associated with a 10% lower risk for long-term unemployment in the following year.
In addition, among the female participants, longer treatment duration was associated with a lower risk for subsequent long-term unemployment. In both genders, within-individual comparisons showed long-term unemployment was lower during periods of ADHD medication treatment, compared with nontreatment periods.
“This evidence should be considered together with the existing knowledge of risks and benefits of ADHD medications when developing treatment plans for working-aged adults,” lead author Lin Li, MSc, a doctoral candidate at the School of Medical Science, Örebro University, Sweden, told this news organization.
“However, the effect size is relatively small in magnitude, indicating that other treatment programs, such as psychotherapy, are also needed to help individuals with ADHD in work-related settings,” Ms. Li said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Evidence gap
Adults with ADHD “have occupational impairments, such as poor work performance, less job stability, financial problems, and increased risk for unemployment,” the investigators write.
However, “less is known about the extent to which pharmacological treatment of ADHD is associated with reductions in unemployment rates,” they add.
“People with ADHD have been reported to have problems in work-related performance,” Ms. Li noted. “ADHD medications could reduce ADHD symptoms and also help with academic achievement, but there is limited evidence on the association between ADHD medication and occupational outcomes.”
To address this gap in evidence, the researchers turned to several major Swedish registries to identify 25,358 individuals with ADHD born between 1958 and 1978 who were aged 30 to 55 years during the study period of Jan. 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2013).
Of these, 12,875 (41.5% women; mean age, 37.9 years) were included in the analysis. Most participants (81.19%) had more than 9 years of education.
The registers provided information not only about diagnosis, but also about prescription medications these individuals took for ADHD, including methylphenidate, amphetamine, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, and atomoxetine.
Administrative records provided data about yearly accumulated unemployment days, with long-term unemployment defined as having at least 90 days of unemployment in a calendar year.
Covariates included age at baseline, sex, country of birth, highest educational level, crime records, and psychiatric comorbidities.
Most patients (69.34%) had at least one psychiatric comorbidity, with depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders being the most common (in 40.28%, 35.27%, and 28.77%, respectively).
Symptom reduction
The mean length of medication use was 49 days (range, 0-366 days) per year. Of participants in whom these data were available, 31.29% of women and 31.03% of men never used ADHD medications. Among participants treated with ADHD medication (68.71%), only 3.23% of the women and 3.46% of the men had persistent use during the follow-up period.
Among women and men in whom these data were available, (38.85% of the total sample), 35.70% and 41.08%, respectively, were recorded as having one or more long-term unemployment stretches across the study period. In addition, 0.15% and 0.4%, respectively, had long-term unemployment during each of those years.
Use of ADHD medications during the previous 2 years was associated with a 10% lower risk for long-term unemployment in the following year (adjusted relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.95).
The researchers also found an association between use of ADHD medications and long-term unemployment among women (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89) but not among men (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.01).
Among women in particular, longer treatment duration was associated with a lower risk of subsequent long-term unemployment (P < .001 for trend).
Within-individual comparisons showed the long-term unemployment rate was lower during periods when individuals were being treated with ADHD medication vs. periods of nontreatment (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
“Among 12,875 working-aged adults with ADHD in Sweden, we found the use of ADHD medication is associated with a lower risk of long-term unemployment, especially for women,” Ms. Li said.
“The hypothesis of this study is that ADHD medications are effective in reducing ADHD symptoms, which may in turn help to improve work performance among individuals with ADHD,” she added.
However, Ms. Li cautioned, “the information on ADHD symptoms is not available in Swedish National Registers, so more research is needed to test the hypothesis.”
The investigators also suggest that future research “should further explore the effectiveness of stimulant and nonstimulant ADHD medications” and replicate their findings in other settings.
Findings ‘make sense’
Commenting on the study, Ari Tuckman PsyD, expert spokesman for Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, said, there is “a lot to like about this study, specifically the large sample size and within-individual comparisons that the Scandinavians’ databases allow.”
“We know that ADHD can impact both finding and keeping a job, so it absolutely makes sense that medication use would reduce duration of unemployment,” said Dr. Tuckman, who is in private practice in West Chester, Pa., and was not involved with the research.
However, “I would venture that the results would have been more robust if the authors had been able to only look at those on optimized medication regimens, which is far too few,” he added. “This lack of optimization would have been even more true 10 years ago, which is when the data was from.”
The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, an award from the Swedish Research Council, and a grant from Shire International GmbH, a member of the Takeda group of companies. Ms. Li and Dr. Tuckman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators analyzed data for almost 13,000 working-age adults with ADHD and found ADHD medication use during the previous 2 years was associated with a 10% lower risk for long-term unemployment in the following year.
In addition, among the female participants, longer treatment duration was associated with a lower risk for subsequent long-term unemployment. In both genders, within-individual comparisons showed long-term unemployment was lower during periods of ADHD medication treatment, compared with nontreatment periods.
“This evidence should be considered together with the existing knowledge of risks and benefits of ADHD medications when developing treatment plans for working-aged adults,” lead author Lin Li, MSc, a doctoral candidate at the School of Medical Science, Örebro University, Sweden, told this news organization.
“However, the effect size is relatively small in magnitude, indicating that other treatment programs, such as psychotherapy, are also needed to help individuals with ADHD in work-related settings,” Ms. Li said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Evidence gap
Adults with ADHD “have occupational impairments, such as poor work performance, less job stability, financial problems, and increased risk for unemployment,” the investigators write.
However, “less is known about the extent to which pharmacological treatment of ADHD is associated with reductions in unemployment rates,” they add.
“People with ADHD have been reported to have problems in work-related performance,” Ms. Li noted. “ADHD medications could reduce ADHD symptoms and also help with academic achievement, but there is limited evidence on the association between ADHD medication and occupational outcomes.”
To address this gap in evidence, the researchers turned to several major Swedish registries to identify 25,358 individuals with ADHD born between 1958 and 1978 who were aged 30 to 55 years during the study period of Jan. 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2013).
Of these, 12,875 (41.5% women; mean age, 37.9 years) were included in the analysis. Most participants (81.19%) had more than 9 years of education.
The registers provided information not only about diagnosis, but also about prescription medications these individuals took for ADHD, including methylphenidate, amphetamine, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, and atomoxetine.
Administrative records provided data about yearly accumulated unemployment days, with long-term unemployment defined as having at least 90 days of unemployment in a calendar year.
Covariates included age at baseline, sex, country of birth, highest educational level, crime records, and psychiatric comorbidities.
Most patients (69.34%) had at least one psychiatric comorbidity, with depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders being the most common (in 40.28%, 35.27%, and 28.77%, respectively).
Symptom reduction
The mean length of medication use was 49 days (range, 0-366 days) per year. Of participants in whom these data were available, 31.29% of women and 31.03% of men never used ADHD medications. Among participants treated with ADHD medication (68.71%), only 3.23% of the women and 3.46% of the men had persistent use during the follow-up period.
Among women and men in whom these data were available, (38.85% of the total sample), 35.70% and 41.08%, respectively, were recorded as having one or more long-term unemployment stretches across the study period. In addition, 0.15% and 0.4%, respectively, had long-term unemployment during each of those years.
Use of ADHD medications during the previous 2 years was associated with a 10% lower risk for long-term unemployment in the following year (adjusted relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.95).
The researchers also found an association between use of ADHD medications and long-term unemployment among women (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89) but not among men (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.01).
Among women in particular, longer treatment duration was associated with a lower risk of subsequent long-term unemployment (P < .001 for trend).
Within-individual comparisons showed the long-term unemployment rate was lower during periods when individuals were being treated with ADHD medication vs. periods of nontreatment (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
“Among 12,875 working-aged adults with ADHD in Sweden, we found the use of ADHD medication is associated with a lower risk of long-term unemployment, especially for women,” Ms. Li said.
“The hypothesis of this study is that ADHD medications are effective in reducing ADHD symptoms, which may in turn help to improve work performance among individuals with ADHD,” she added.
However, Ms. Li cautioned, “the information on ADHD symptoms is not available in Swedish National Registers, so more research is needed to test the hypothesis.”
The investigators also suggest that future research “should further explore the effectiveness of stimulant and nonstimulant ADHD medications” and replicate their findings in other settings.
Findings ‘make sense’
Commenting on the study, Ari Tuckman PsyD, expert spokesman for Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, said, there is “a lot to like about this study, specifically the large sample size and within-individual comparisons that the Scandinavians’ databases allow.”
“We know that ADHD can impact both finding and keeping a job, so it absolutely makes sense that medication use would reduce duration of unemployment,” said Dr. Tuckman, who is in private practice in West Chester, Pa., and was not involved with the research.
However, “I would venture that the results would have been more robust if the authors had been able to only look at those on optimized medication regimens, which is far too few,” he added. “This lack of optimization would have been even more true 10 years ago, which is when the data was from.”
The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, an award from the Swedish Research Council, and a grant from Shire International GmbH, a member of the Takeda group of companies. Ms. Li and Dr. Tuckman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators analyzed data for almost 13,000 working-age adults with ADHD and found ADHD medication use during the previous 2 years was associated with a 10% lower risk for long-term unemployment in the following year.
In addition, among the female participants, longer treatment duration was associated with a lower risk for subsequent long-term unemployment. In both genders, within-individual comparisons showed long-term unemployment was lower during periods of ADHD medication treatment, compared with nontreatment periods.
“This evidence should be considered together with the existing knowledge of risks and benefits of ADHD medications when developing treatment plans for working-aged adults,” lead author Lin Li, MSc, a doctoral candidate at the School of Medical Science, Örebro University, Sweden, told this news organization.
“However, the effect size is relatively small in magnitude, indicating that other treatment programs, such as psychotherapy, are also needed to help individuals with ADHD in work-related settings,” Ms. Li said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Evidence gap
Adults with ADHD “have occupational impairments, such as poor work performance, less job stability, financial problems, and increased risk for unemployment,” the investigators write.
However, “less is known about the extent to which pharmacological treatment of ADHD is associated with reductions in unemployment rates,” they add.
“People with ADHD have been reported to have problems in work-related performance,” Ms. Li noted. “ADHD medications could reduce ADHD symptoms and also help with academic achievement, but there is limited evidence on the association between ADHD medication and occupational outcomes.”
To address this gap in evidence, the researchers turned to several major Swedish registries to identify 25,358 individuals with ADHD born between 1958 and 1978 who were aged 30 to 55 years during the study period of Jan. 1, 2008, through Dec. 31, 2013).
Of these, 12,875 (41.5% women; mean age, 37.9 years) were included in the analysis. Most participants (81.19%) had more than 9 years of education.
The registers provided information not only about diagnosis, but also about prescription medications these individuals took for ADHD, including methylphenidate, amphetamine, dexamphetamine, lisdexamfetamine, and atomoxetine.
Administrative records provided data about yearly accumulated unemployment days, with long-term unemployment defined as having at least 90 days of unemployment in a calendar year.
Covariates included age at baseline, sex, country of birth, highest educational level, crime records, and psychiatric comorbidities.
Most patients (69.34%) had at least one psychiatric comorbidity, with depressive, anxiety, and substance use disorders being the most common (in 40.28%, 35.27%, and 28.77%, respectively).
Symptom reduction
The mean length of medication use was 49 days (range, 0-366 days) per year. Of participants in whom these data were available, 31.29% of women and 31.03% of men never used ADHD medications. Among participants treated with ADHD medication (68.71%), only 3.23% of the women and 3.46% of the men had persistent use during the follow-up period.
Among women and men in whom these data were available, (38.85% of the total sample), 35.70% and 41.08%, respectively, were recorded as having one or more long-term unemployment stretches across the study period. In addition, 0.15% and 0.4%, respectively, had long-term unemployment during each of those years.
Use of ADHD medications during the previous 2 years was associated with a 10% lower risk for long-term unemployment in the following year (adjusted relative risk, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.95).
The researchers also found an association between use of ADHD medications and long-term unemployment among women (RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.76-0.89) but not among men (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.91-1.01).
Among women in particular, longer treatment duration was associated with a lower risk of subsequent long-term unemployment (P < .001 for trend).
Within-individual comparisons showed the long-term unemployment rate was lower during periods when individuals were being treated with ADHD medication vs. periods of nontreatment (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94).
“Among 12,875 working-aged adults with ADHD in Sweden, we found the use of ADHD medication is associated with a lower risk of long-term unemployment, especially for women,” Ms. Li said.
“The hypothesis of this study is that ADHD medications are effective in reducing ADHD symptoms, which may in turn help to improve work performance among individuals with ADHD,” she added.
However, Ms. Li cautioned, “the information on ADHD symptoms is not available in Swedish National Registers, so more research is needed to test the hypothesis.”
The investigators also suggest that future research “should further explore the effectiveness of stimulant and nonstimulant ADHD medications” and replicate their findings in other settings.
Findings ‘make sense’
Commenting on the study, Ari Tuckman PsyD, expert spokesman for Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, said, there is “a lot to like about this study, specifically the large sample size and within-individual comparisons that the Scandinavians’ databases allow.”
“We know that ADHD can impact both finding and keeping a job, so it absolutely makes sense that medication use would reduce duration of unemployment,” said Dr. Tuckman, who is in private practice in West Chester, Pa., and was not involved with the research.
However, “I would venture that the results would have been more robust if the authors had been able to only look at those on optimized medication regimens, which is far too few,” he added. “This lack of optimization would have been even more true 10 years ago, which is when the data was from.”
The study was supported by a grant from the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare, an award from the Swedish Research Council, and a grant from Shire International GmbH, a member of the Takeda group of companies. Ms. Li and Dr. Tuckman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the original paper.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Metacognitive training an effective, durable treatment for schizophrenia
Metacognitive training (MCT) is effective in reducing positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, new research suggests.
MCT for psychosis is a brief intervention that “combines psychoeducation, cognitive bias modification, and strategy teaching but does not directly target psychosis symptoms.”
Additionally, MCT led to improvement in self-esteem and functioning, and all benefits were maintained up to 1 year post intervention.
“Our study demonstrates the effectiveness and durability of a brief, nonconfrontational intervention in the reduction of serious and debilitating symptoms of schizophrenia,” study investigator Danielle Penney, a doctoral candidate at the University of Montreal, told this news organization.
“Our results were observed in several treatment contexts and suggest that MCT can be successfully delivered by a variety of mental health practitioners [and] provide solid evidence to consider MCT in international treatment guidelines for schizophrenia spectrum disorders,” Ms. Penney said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
‘Novel contribution’
MCT is a brief intervention consisting of eight to 16 modules that can be delivered in a group setting or on an individual basis. Instead of directly targeting psychotic symptoms, it uses an “indirect approach by promoting awareness of cognitive biases,” the investigators note.
Such biases include maladaptive thinking styles common to psychosis, such as jumping to conclusions, belief inflexibility, and overconfidence in judgments.
It is hypothesized that these biases “contribute to the formation and maintenance of positive symptoms, particularly delusions,” the researchers write.
MCT “aims to plant doubt in delusional beliefs through raising awareness of cognitive biases and aims to raise service engagement by proposing work on this less-confrontational objective first, which is likely to facilitate the therapeutic alliance and more direct work on psychotic symptoms,” they add.
Previous studies of MCT for psychosis yielded inconsistent results. Of the eight previous meta-analyses that analyzed MCT for psychosis, “none investigated the long-term effects of the intervention on directly targeted treatment outcomes,” such as delusions and cognitive biases, Ms. Penney said.
She added that “to our knowledge, no meta-analysis has examined the effectiveness of important indirectly targeted outcomes,” including self-esteem and functioning.
“These important gaps in the literature,” along with a large increase in recently conducted MCT efficacy trials, “provided the motivation for the current study,” said Ms. Penney.
To investigate, the researchers searched 11 databases, beginning with data from 2007, which was when the first report of MCT was published. Studies included participants with schizophrenia spectrum and related psychotic disorders.
Outcomes for the current review and meta-analysis were organized according to a “proximal-distal framework.” Proximal outcomes were those directly targeted by MCT, while distal outcomes were those not directly targeted by MCT but that were associated with improvement in proximal outcomes, either directly or indirectly.
The investigators examined these outcomes quantitatively and qualitatively from preintervention to postintervention and follow-up, “which, to our knowledge, is a novel contribution,” they write.
The review included 43 studies, of which 30 (70%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 (25%) were non-RCTs, and two (5%) were quantitative descriptive studies. Of these, 40 reports (n = 1,816 participants) were included in the meta-analysis, and six were included in the narrative review.
Transdiagnostic treatment?
Results showed a “small to moderate” effect size (ES) in global proximal outcomes (g = .39; 95% confidence interval, .25-.53; P < .001; 38 reports).
When proximal outcomes were analyzed separately, the largest ES was found for delusions; smaller ES values were found for hallucinations and cognitive biases.
Newer studies reported higher ES values for hallucinations, compared with older studies (β = .04; 95% CI, .00-.07).
ES was small to moderate for distal outcomes (g = .31; 95% CI, .19-.44; P < .001; 26 reports). “Small but significant” ES values were shown for self-esteem and negative symptoms, small to moderate for functioning, and small but nonsignificant for quality of life (QOL).
The researchers also analyzed RCTs by comparing differences between the treatment and control groups in scores from follow-up to post-treatment. Although the therapeutic gains made by the experimental group were “steadily maintained, the ES values were “small” and nonsignificant.
When the difference in scores between follow-up and baseline were compared in both groups, small to moderate ES values were found for proximal as well as distal outcomes.
“These results further indicate that net therapeutic gains remain significant even 1 year following MCT,” the investigators note.
Lower-quality studies showed significantly lower ES values for distal (between-group comparison, P = .05) but not proximal outcomes.
Overall, the findings suggest that MCT is a “beneficial and durable low-threshold intervention that can be flexibly delivered at minimal cost in a variety of contexts to individuals with psychotic disorders,” the researchers write.
They note that MCT has also been associated with positive outcomes in other patient populations, including patients with borderline personality disorder, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Future research “might consider investigating MCT as a transdiagnostic treatment,” they add.
Consistent beneficial effects
Commenting on the study, Philip Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and director of the Division of Psychology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, noted that self-awareness and self-assessment are critically important features in patients with serious mental illness.
Impairments in these areas “can actually have a greater impact on everyday functioning than cognitive deficits,” said Dr. Harvey, who is also the editor-in-chief of Schizophrenia Research: Cognition. He was not involved with the current meta-analysis.
He noted that the current results show that “MCT has consistent beneficial effects.”
“This is an intervention that should be considered for most people with serious mental illness, with a specific focus on those with specific types of delusions and more global challenges in self-assessment,” Dr. Harvey concluded.
Funding was provided by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, awarded through the Healthy Brains, Healthy Lives initiative at McGill University. Ms. Penney reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reported being a reviewer of the article but that he was not involved in its authorship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Metacognitive training (MCT) is effective in reducing positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, new research suggests.
MCT for psychosis is a brief intervention that “combines psychoeducation, cognitive bias modification, and strategy teaching but does not directly target psychosis symptoms.”
Additionally, MCT led to improvement in self-esteem and functioning, and all benefits were maintained up to 1 year post intervention.
“Our study demonstrates the effectiveness and durability of a brief, nonconfrontational intervention in the reduction of serious and debilitating symptoms of schizophrenia,” study investigator Danielle Penney, a doctoral candidate at the University of Montreal, told this news organization.
“Our results were observed in several treatment contexts and suggest that MCT can be successfully delivered by a variety of mental health practitioners [and] provide solid evidence to consider MCT in international treatment guidelines for schizophrenia spectrum disorders,” Ms. Penney said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
‘Novel contribution’
MCT is a brief intervention consisting of eight to 16 modules that can be delivered in a group setting or on an individual basis. Instead of directly targeting psychotic symptoms, it uses an “indirect approach by promoting awareness of cognitive biases,” the investigators note.
Such biases include maladaptive thinking styles common to psychosis, such as jumping to conclusions, belief inflexibility, and overconfidence in judgments.
It is hypothesized that these biases “contribute to the formation and maintenance of positive symptoms, particularly delusions,” the researchers write.
MCT “aims to plant doubt in delusional beliefs through raising awareness of cognitive biases and aims to raise service engagement by proposing work on this less-confrontational objective first, which is likely to facilitate the therapeutic alliance and more direct work on psychotic symptoms,” they add.
Previous studies of MCT for psychosis yielded inconsistent results. Of the eight previous meta-analyses that analyzed MCT for psychosis, “none investigated the long-term effects of the intervention on directly targeted treatment outcomes,” such as delusions and cognitive biases, Ms. Penney said.
She added that “to our knowledge, no meta-analysis has examined the effectiveness of important indirectly targeted outcomes,” including self-esteem and functioning.
“These important gaps in the literature,” along with a large increase in recently conducted MCT efficacy trials, “provided the motivation for the current study,” said Ms. Penney.
To investigate, the researchers searched 11 databases, beginning with data from 2007, which was when the first report of MCT was published. Studies included participants with schizophrenia spectrum and related psychotic disorders.
Outcomes for the current review and meta-analysis were organized according to a “proximal-distal framework.” Proximal outcomes were those directly targeted by MCT, while distal outcomes were those not directly targeted by MCT but that were associated with improvement in proximal outcomes, either directly or indirectly.
The investigators examined these outcomes quantitatively and qualitatively from preintervention to postintervention and follow-up, “which, to our knowledge, is a novel contribution,” they write.
The review included 43 studies, of which 30 (70%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 (25%) were non-RCTs, and two (5%) were quantitative descriptive studies. Of these, 40 reports (n = 1,816 participants) were included in the meta-analysis, and six were included in the narrative review.
Transdiagnostic treatment?
Results showed a “small to moderate” effect size (ES) in global proximal outcomes (g = .39; 95% confidence interval, .25-.53; P < .001; 38 reports).
When proximal outcomes were analyzed separately, the largest ES was found for delusions; smaller ES values were found for hallucinations and cognitive biases.
Newer studies reported higher ES values for hallucinations, compared with older studies (β = .04; 95% CI, .00-.07).
ES was small to moderate for distal outcomes (g = .31; 95% CI, .19-.44; P < .001; 26 reports). “Small but significant” ES values were shown for self-esteem and negative symptoms, small to moderate for functioning, and small but nonsignificant for quality of life (QOL).
The researchers also analyzed RCTs by comparing differences between the treatment and control groups in scores from follow-up to post-treatment. Although the therapeutic gains made by the experimental group were “steadily maintained, the ES values were “small” and nonsignificant.
When the difference in scores between follow-up and baseline were compared in both groups, small to moderate ES values were found for proximal as well as distal outcomes.
“These results further indicate that net therapeutic gains remain significant even 1 year following MCT,” the investigators note.
Lower-quality studies showed significantly lower ES values for distal (between-group comparison, P = .05) but not proximal outcomes.
Overall, the findings suggest that MCT is a “beneficial and durable low-threshold intervention that can be flexibly delivered at minimal cost in a variety of contexts to individuals with psychotic disorders,” the researchers write.
They note that MCT has also been associated with positive outcomes in other patient populations, including patients with borderline personality disorder, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Future research “might consider investigating MCT as a transdiagnostic treatment,” they add.
Consistent beneficial effects
Commenting on the study, Philip Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and director of the Division of Psychology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, noted that self-awareness and self-assessment are critically important features in patients with serious mental illness.
Impairments in these areas “can actually have a greater impact on everyday functioning than cognitive deficits,” said Dr. Harvey, who is also the editor-in-chief of Schizophrenia Research: Cognition. He was not involved with the current meta-analysis.
He noted that the current results show that “MCT has consistent beneficial effects.”
“This is an intervention that should be considered for most people with serious mental illness, with a specific focus on those with specific types of delusions and more global challenges in self-assessment,” Dr. Harvey concluded.
Funding was provided by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, awarded through the Healthy Brains, Healthy Lives initiative at McGill University. Ms. Penney reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reported being a reviewer of the article but that he was not involved in its authorship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Metacognitive training (MCT) is effective in reducing positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia, new research suggests.
MCT for psychosis is a brief intervention that “combines psychoeducation, cognitive bias modification, and strategy teaching but does not directly target psychosis symptoms.”
Additionally, MCT led to improvement in self-esteem and functioning, and all benefits were maintained up to 1 year post intervention.
“Our study demonstrates the effectiveness and durability of a brief, nonconfrontational intervention in the reduction of serious and debilitating symptoms of schizophrenia,” study investigator Danielle Penney, a doctoral candidate at the University of Montreal, told this news organization.
“Our results were observed in several treatment contexts and suggest that MCT can be successfully delivered by a variety of mental health practitioners [and] provide solid evidence to consider MCT in international treatment guidelines for schizophrenia spectrum disorders,” Ms. Penney said.
The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
‘Novel contribution’
MCT is a brief intervention consisting of eight to 16 modules that can be delivered in a group setting or on an individual basis. Instead of directly targeting psychotic symptoms, it uses an “indirect approach by promoting awareness of cognitive biases,” the investigators note.
Such biases include maladaptive thinking styles common to psychosis, such as jumping to conclusions, belief inflexibility, and overconfidence in judgments.
It is hypothesized that these biases “contribute to the formation and maintenance of positive symptoms, particularly delusions,” the researchers write.
MCT “aims to plant doubt in delusional beliefs through raising awareness of cognitive biases and aims to raise service engagement by proposing work on this less-confrontational objective first, which is likely to facilitate the therapeutic alliance and more direct work on psychotic symptoms,” they add.
Previous studies of MCT for psychosis yielded inconsistent results. Of the eight previous meta-analyses that analyzed MCT for psychosis, “none investigated the long-term effects of the intervention on directly targeted treatment outcomes,” such as delusions and cognitive biases, Ms. Penney said.
She added that “to our knowledge, no meta-analysis has examined the effectiveness of important indirectly targeted outcomes,” including self-esteem and functioning.
“These important gaps in the literature,” along with a large increase in recently conducted MCT efficacy trials, “provided the motivation for the current study,” said Ms. Penney.
To investigate, the researchers searched 11 databases, beginning with data from 2007, which was when the first report of MCT was published. Studies included participants with schizophrenia spectrum and related psychotic disorders.
Outcomes for the current review and meta-analysis were organized according to a “proximal-distal framework.” Proximal outcomes were those directly targeted by MCT, while distal outcomes were those not directly targeted by MCT but that were associated with improvement in proximal outcomes, either directly or indirectly.
The investigators examined these outcomes quantitatively and qualitatively from preintervention to postintervention and follow-up, “which, to our knowledge, is a novel contribution,” they write.
The review included 43 studies, of which 30 (70%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 11 (25%) were non-RCTs, and two (5%) were quantitative descriptive studies. Of these, 40 reports (n = 1,816 participants) were included in the meta-analysis, and six were included in the narrative review.
Transdiagnostic treatment?
Results showed a “small to moderate” effect size (ES) in global proximal outcomes (g = .39; 95% confidence interval, .25-.53; P < .001; 38 reports).
When proximal outcomes were analyzed separately, the largest ES was found for delusions; smaller ES values were found for hallucinations and cognitive biases.
Newer studies reported higher ES values for hallucinations, compared with older studies (β = .04; 95% CI, .00-.07).
ES was small to moderate for distal outcomes (g = .31; 95% CI, .19-.44; P < .001; 26 reports). “Small but significant” ES values were shown for self-esteem and negative symptoms, small to moderate for functioning, and small but nonsignificant for quality of life (QOL).
The researchers also analyzed RCTs by comparing differences between the treatment and control groups in scores from follow-up to post-treatment. Although the therapeutic gains made by the experimental group were “steadily maintained, the ES values were “small” and nonsignificant.
When the difference in scores between follow-up and baseline were compared in both groups, small to moderate ES values were found for proximal as well as distal outcomes.
“These results further indicate that net therapeutic gains remain significant even 1 year following MCT,” the investigators note.
Lower-quality studies showed significantly lower ES values for distal (between-group comparison, P = .05) but not proximal outcomes.
Overall, the findings suggest that MCT is a “beneficial and durable low-threshold intervention that can be flexibly delivered at minimal cost in a variety of contexts to individuals with psychotic disorders,” the researchers write.
They note that MCT has also been associated with positive outcomes in other patient populations, including patients with borderline personality disorder, depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Future research “might consider investigating MCT as a transdiagnostic treatment,” they add.
Consistent beneficial effects
Commenting on the study, Philip Harvey, PhD, Leonard M. Miller Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and director of the Division of Psychology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, noted that self-awareness and self-assessment are critically important features in patients with serious mental illness.
Impairments in these areas “can actually have a greater impact on everyday functioning than cognitive deficits,” said Dr. Harvey, who is also the editor-in-chief of Schizophrenia Research: Cognition. He was not involved with the current meta-analysis.
He noted that the current results show that “MCT has consistent beneficial effects.”
“This is an intervention that should be considered for most people with serious mental illness, with a specific focus on those with specific types of delusions and more global challenges in self-assessment,” Dr. Harvey concluded.
Funding was provided by the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, awarded through the Healthy Brains, Healthy Lives initiative at McGill University. Ms. Penney reported no relevant financial relationships. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Harvey reported being a reviewer of the article but that he was not involved in its authorship.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Even light physical activity linked to lower dementia risk
Older adults who participate in even light physical activity (LPA) may have a lower risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.
In a retrospective analysis of more than 62,000 individuals aged 65 or older without preexisting dementia, 6% developed dementia.
Compared with inactive individuals, “insufficiently active,” “active,” and “highly active” individuals all had a 10%, 20%, and 28% lower risk for dementia, respectively. And this association was consistent regardless of age, sex, other comorbidities, or after the researchers censored for stroke.
Even the lowest amount of LPA was associated with reduced dementia risk, investigators noted.
“In older adults, an increased physical activity level, including a low amount of LPA, was associated with a reduced risk of dementia,” Minjae Yoon, MD, division of cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues wrote.
“Promotion of LPA might reduce the risk of dementia in older adults,” they added.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Reverse causation?
Physical activity has been shown previously to be associated with reduced dementia risk. Current World Health Organization guidelines recommend that adults with normal cognition should engage in PA to reduce their risk for cognitive decline.
However, some studies have not yielded this result, “suggesting that previous findings showing a lower risk of dementia in physically active people could be attributed to reverse causation,” the investigators noted. Additionally, previous research regarding exercise intensity has been “inconsistent” concerning the role of LPA in reducing dementia risk.
Many older adults with frailty and comorbidity cannot perform intense or even moderate PA, therefore “these adults would have to gain the benefits of physical activity from LPA,” the researchers noted.
To clarify the potential association between PA and new-onset dementia, they focused specifically on the “dose-response association” between PA and dementia – especially LPA.
Between 2009 and 2012, the investigators enrolled 62,286 older individuals (60.4% women; mean age, 73.2 years) with available health checkup data from the National Health Insurance Service–Senior Database of Korea. All had no history of dementia.
Leisure-time PA was assessed with self-report questionnaires that used a 7-day recall method and included three questions regarding usual frequency (in days per week):
- Vigorous PA (VPA) for at least 20 minutes
- Moderate-intensity PA (MPA) for at least 30 minutes
- LPA for at least 30 minutes
VPA was defined as “intense exercise that caused severe shortness of breath, MPA was defined as activity causing mild shortness of breath, and LPA was defined as “walking at a slow or leisurely pace.”
PA-related energy expenditure was also calculated in metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week by “summing the product of frequency, intensity, and duration,” the investigators noted.
Participants were stratified on the basis of their weekly total PA levels into the following groups:
- Inactive (no LPA beyond basic movements)
- Insufficiently active (less than the recommended target range of 1-499 MET-min/wk)
- Active (meeting the recommended target range of 500-999 MET-min/wk)
- Highly active (exceeding the recommended target range of at least 1,000 MET-min/wk)
Of all participants, 35% were categorized as inactive, 25% were insufficiently active, 24.4% were active, and 15.2% were highly active.
Controversy remains
During the total median follow-up of 42 months, 6% of participants had all-cause dementia. After the researchers excluded the first 2 years, incidence of dementia was 21.6 per 1000 person-years during follow-up.
“The cumulative incidence of dementia was associated with a progressively decreasing trend with increasing physical activity” (P = .001 for trend), the investigators reported.
When using a competing-risk multivariable regression model, they found that higher levels of PA were associated with lower risk for dementia, compared with the inactive group.
Similar findings were obtained after censoring for stroke, and were consistent for all follow-up periods. In subgroup analysis, the association between PA level and dementia risk remained consistent, regardless of age, sex, and comorbidities.
Even a low amount of LPA (1-299 MET-min/wk) was linked to reduced risk for dementia versus total sedentary behavior (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99).
The investigators noted that some “controversy” remains regarding the possibility of reverse causation and, because their study was observational in nature, “it cannot be used to establish causal relationship.”
Nevertheless, the study had important strengths, including the large number of older adults with available data, the assessment of dose-response association between PA and dementia, and the sensitivity analyses they performed, the researchers added.
Piece of important evidence
Commenting on the findings, Takashi Tarumi, PhD, senior research investigator, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Ibaraki, Japan, said previous studies have suggested “an inverse association between physical activity and dementia risk, such that older adults performing a higher dose of exercise may have a greater benefit for reducing the dementia risk.”
Dr. Tarumi, an associate editor at the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, added the current study “significantly extends our knowledge by showing that dementia risk can also be reduced by light physical activities when they are performed for longer hours.”
This provides “another piece of important evidence” to support clinicians recommending regular physical activity for the prevention of dementia in later life, said Dr. Tarumi, who was not involved with the research.
Also commenting, Martin Underwood, MD, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, England, described the association between reduced physical inactivity and dementia as well established – and noted the current study “appears to confirm earlier observational data showing this relationship.”
The current results have “still not been able to fully exclude the possibility of reverse causation,” said Dr. Underwood, who was also not associated with the study.
However, the finding that more physically active individuals are less likely to develop dementia “only becomes of real interest if we can show that increased physical activity prevents the onset, or slows the progression, of dementia,” he noted.
“To my knowledge this has not yet been established” in randomized clinical trials, Dr. Underwood added.
The study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea; and by a research grant from Yonsei University. One coauthor reported serving as a speaker for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Medtronic, and Daiichi-Sankyo, and receiving research funds from Medtronic and Abbott. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Tarumi and Dr. Underwood have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older adults who participate in even light physical activity (LPA) may have a lower risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.
In a retrospective analysis of more than 62,000 individuals aged 65 or older without preexisting dementia, 6% developed dementia.
Compared with inactive individuals, “insufficiently active,” “active,” and “highly active” individuals all had a 10%, 20%, and 28% lower risk for dementia, respectively. And this association was consistent regardless of age, sex, other comorbidities, or after the researchers censored for stroke.
Even the lowest amount of LPA was associated with reduced dementia risk, investigators noted.
“In older adults, an increased physical activity level, including a low amount of LPA, was associated with a reduced risk of dementia,” Minjae Yoon, MD, division of cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues wrote.
“Promotion of LPA might reduce the risk of dementia in older adults,” they added.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Reverse causation?
Physical activity has been shown previously to be associated with reduced dementia risk. Current World Health Organization guidelines recommend that adults with normal cognition should engage in PA to reduce their risk for cognitive decline.
However, some studies have not yielded this result, “suggesting that previous findings showing a lower risk of dementia in physically active people could be attributed to reverse causation,” the investigators noted. Additionally, previous research regarding exercise intensity has been “inconsistent” concerning the role of LPA in reducing dementia risk.
Many older adults with frailty and comorbidity cannot perform intense or even moderate PA, therefore “these adults would have to gain the benefits of physical activity from LPA,” the researchers noted.
To clarify the potential association between PA and new-onset dementia, they focused specifically on the “dose-response association” between PA and dementia – especially LPA.
Between 2009 and 2012, the investigators enrolled 62,286 older individuals (60.4% women; mean age, 73.2 years) with available health checkup data from the National Health Insurance Service–Senior Database of Korea. All had no history of dementia.
Leisure-time PA was assessed with self-report questionnaires that used a 7-day recall method and included three questions regarding usual frequency (in days per week):
- Vigorous PA (VPA) for at least 20 minutes
- Moderate-intensity PA (MPA) for at least 30 minutes
- LPA for at least 30 minutes
VPA was defined as “intense exercise that caused severe shortness of breath, MPA was defined as activity causing mild shortness of breath, and LPA was defined as “walking at a slow or leisurely pace.”
PA-related energy expenditure was also calculated in metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week by “summing the product of frequency, intensity, and duration,” the investigators noted.
Participants were stratified on the basis of their weekly total PA levels into the following groups:
- Inactive (no LPA beyond basic movements)
- Insufficiently active (less than the recommended target range of 1-499 MET-min/wk)
- Active (meeting the recommended target range of 500-999 MET-min/wk)
- Highly active (exceeding the recommended target range of at least 1,000 MET-min/wk)
Of all participants, 35% were categorized as inactive, 25% were insufficiently active, 24.4% were active, and 15.2% were highly active.
Controversy remains
During the total median follow-up of 42 months, 6% of participants had all-cause dementia. After the researchers excluded the first 2 years, incidence of dementia was 21.6 per 1000 person-years during follow-up.
“The cumulative incidence of dementia was associated with a progressively decreasing trend with increasing physical activity” (P = .001 for trend), the investigators reported.
When using a competing-risk multivariable regression model, they found that higher levels of PA were associated with lower risk for dementia, compared with the inactive group.
Similar findings were obtained after censoring for stroke, and were consistent for all follow-up periods. In subgroup analysis, the association between PA level and dementia risk remained consistent, regardless of age, sex, and comorbidities.
Even a low amount of LPA (1-299 MET-min/wk) was linked to reduced risk for dementia versus total sedentary behavior (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99).
The investigators noted that some “controversy” remains regarding the possibility of reverse causation and, because their study was observational in nature, “it cannot be used to establish causal relationship.”
Nevertheless, the study had important strengths, including the large number of older adults with available data, the assessment of dose-response association between PA and dementia, and the sensitivity analyses they performed, the researchers added.
Piece of important evidence
Commenting on the findings, Takashi Tarumi, PhD, senior research investigator, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Ibaraki, Japan, said previous studies have suggested “an inverse association between physical activity and dementia risk, such that older adults performing a higher dose of exercise may have a greater benefit for reducing the dementia risk.”
Dr. Tarumi, an associate editor at the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, added the current study “significantly extends our knowledge by showing that dementia risk can also be reduced by light physical activities when they are performed for longer hours.”
This provides “another piece of important evidence” to support clinicians recommending regular physical activity for the prevention of dementia in later life, said Dr. Tarumi, who was not involved with the research.
Also commenting, Martin Underwood, MD, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, England, described the association between reduced physical inactivity and dementia as well established – and noted the current study “appears to confirm earlier observational data showing this relationship.”
The current results have “still not been able to fully exclude the possibility of reverse causation,” said Dr. Underwood, who was also not associated with the study.
However, the finding that more physically active individuals are less likely to develop dementia “only becomes of real interest if we can show that increased physical activity prevents the onset, or slows the progression, of dementia,” he noted.
“To my knowledge this has not yet been established” in randomized clinical trials, Dr. Underwood added.
The study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea; and by a research grant from Yonsei University. One coauthor reported serving as a speaker for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Medtronic, and Daiichi-Sankyo, and receiving research funds from Medtronic and Abbott. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Tarumi and Dr. Underwood have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Older adults who participate in even light physical activity (LPA) may have a lower risk of developing dementia, new research suggests.
In a retrospective analysis of more than 62,000 individuals aged 65 or older without preexisting dementia, 6% developed dementia.
Compared with inactive individuals, “insufficiently active,” “active,” and “highly active” individuals all had a 10%, 20%, and 28% lower risk for dementia, respectively. And this association was consistent regardless of age, sex, other comorbidities, or after the researchers censored for stroke.
Even the lowest amount of LPA was associated with reduced dementia risk, investigators noted.
“In older adults, an increased physical activity level, including a low amount of LPA, was associated with a reduced risk of dementia,” Minjae Yoon, MD, division of cardiology, Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University, Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues wrote.
“Promotion of LPA might reduce the risk of dementia in older adults,” they added.
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Reverse causation?
Physical activity has been shown previously to be associated with reduced dementia risk. Current World Health Organization guidelines recommend that adults with normal cognition should engage in PA to reduce their risk for cognitive decline.
However, some studies have not yielded this result, “suggesting that previous findings showing a lower risk of dementia in physically active people could be attributed to reverse causation,” the investigators noted. Additionally, previous research regarding exercise intensity has been “inconsistent” concerning the role of LPA in reducing dementia risk.
Many older adults with frailty and comorbidity cannot perform intense or even moderate PA, therefore “these adults would have to gain the benefits of physical activity from LPA,” the researchers noted.
To clarify the potential association between PA and new-onset dementia, they focused specifically on the “dose-response association” between PA and dementia – especially LPA.
Between 2009 and 2012, the investigators enrolled 62,286 older individuals (60.4% women; mean age, 73.2 years) with available health checkup data from the National Health Insurance Service–Senior Database of Korea. All had no history of dementia.
Leisure-time PA was assessed with self-report questionnaires that used a 7-day recall method and included three questions regarding usual frequency (in days per week):
- Vigorous PA (VPA) for at least 20 minutes
- Moderate-intensity PA (MPA) for at least 30 minutes
- LPA for at least 30 minutes
VPA was defined as “intense exercise that caused severe shortness of breath, MPA was defined as activity causing mild shortness of breath, and LPA was defined as “walking at a slow or leisurely pace.”
PA-related energy expenditure was also calculated in metabolic equivalent (MET) minutes per week by “summing the product of frequency, intensity, and duration,” the investigators noted.
Participants were stratified on the basis of their weekly total PA levels into the following groups:
- Inactive (no LPA beyond basic movements)
- Insufficiently active (less than the recommended target range of 1-499 MET-min/wk)
- Active (meeting the recommended target range of 500-999 MET-min/wk)
- Highly active (exceeding the recommended target range of at least 1,000 MET-min/wk)
Of all participants, 35% were categorized as inactive, 25% were insufficiently active, 24.4% were active, and 15.2% were highly active.
Controversy remains
During the total median follow-up of 42 months, 6% of participants had all-cause dementia. After the researchers excluded the first 2 years, incidence of dementia was 21.6 per 1000 person-years during follow-up.
“The cumulative incidence of dementia was associated with a progressively decreasing trend with increasing physical activity” (P = .001 for trend), the investigators reported.
When using a competing-risk multivariable regression model, they found that higher levels of PA were associated with lower risk for dementia, compared with the inactive group.
Similar findings were obtained after censoring for stroke, and were consistent for all follow-up periods. In subgroup analysis, the association between PA level and dementia risk remained consistent, regardless of age, sex, and comorbidities.
Even a low amount of LPA (1-299 MET-min/wk) was linked to reduced risk for dementia versus total sedentary behavior (adjusted HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.74-0.99).
The investigators noted that some “controversy” remains regarding the possibility of reverse causation and, because their study was observational in nature, “it cannot be used to establish causal relationship.”
Nevertheless, the study had important strengths, including the large number of older adults with available data, the assessment of dose-response association between PA and dementia, and the sensitivity analyses they performed, the researchers added.
Piece of important evidence
Commenting on the findings, Takashi Tarumi, PhD, senior research investigator, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Ibaraki, Japan, said previous studies have suggested “an inverse association between physical activity and dementia risk, such that older adults performing a higher dose of exercise may have a greater benefit for reducing the dementia risk.”
Dr. Tarumi, an associate editor at the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease, added the current study “significantly extends our knowledge by showing that dementia risk can also be reduced by light physical activities when they are performed for longer hours.”
This provides “another piece of important evidence” to support clinicians recommending regular physical activity for the prevention of dementia in later life, said Dr. Tarumi, who was not involved with the research.
Also commenting, Martin Underwood, MD, Warwick Medical School, Coventry, England, described the association between reduced physical inactivity and dementia as well established – and noted the current study “appears to confirm earlier observational data showing this relationship.”
The current results have “still not been able to fully exclude the possibility of reverse causation,” said Dr. Underwood, who was also not associated with the study.
However, the finding that more physically active individuals are less likely to develop dementia “only becomes of real interest if we can show that increased physical activity prevents the onset, or slows the progression, of dementia,” he noted.
“To my knowledge this has not yet been established” in randomized clinical trials, Dr. Underwood added.
The study was supported by grants from the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Coordinating Center, funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea; and by a research grant from Yonsei University. One coauthor reported serving as a speaker for Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Medtronic, and Daiichi-Sankyo, and receiving research funds from Medtronic and Abbott. No other author disclosures were reported. Dr. Tarumi and Dr. Underwood have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
More fatalities in heart transplant patients with COVID-19
COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.
Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.
“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.
“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.
The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
Similar presentation
HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.
The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”
The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.
“The presentation of COVID-19 was similar to nontransplant patients with fever, dyspnea, cough, and GI symptoms,” Dr. Uriel reported.
No protective effect
Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.
Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).
Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.
Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).
Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.
“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.
“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.
“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
Low threshold
Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.
Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.
“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.
“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.
However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.
The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
Vulnerable population
Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”
Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.
“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.
Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.
Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.
However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”
The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.
The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.
Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.
“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.
“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.
The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
Similar presentation
HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.
The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”
The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.
“The presentation of COVID-19 was similar to nontransplant patients with fever, dyspnea, cough, and GI symptoms,” Dr. Uriel reported.
No protective effect
Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.
Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).
Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.
Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).
Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.
“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.
“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.
“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
Low threshold
Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.
Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.
“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.
“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.
However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.
The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
Vulnerable population
Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”
Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.
“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.
Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.
Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.
However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”
The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.
The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 infection is associated with a high risk for mortality in heart transplant (HT) recipients, a new case series suggests.
Investigators looked at data on 28 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 who received a HT between March 1, 2020, and April 24, 2020 and found a case-fatality rate of 25%.
“The high case fatality in our case series should alert physicians to the vulnerability of heart transplant recipients during the COVID-19 pandemic,” senior author Nir Uriel, MD, MSc, professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York, said in an interview.
“These patients require extra precautions to prevent the development of infection,” said Dr. Uriel, who is also a cardiologist at New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center.
The study was published online May 13 in JAMA Cardiology.
Similar presentation
HT recipients can have several comorbidities after the procedure, including hypertension, diabetes, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and ongoing immunosuppression, all of which can place them at risk for infection and adverse outcomes with COVID-19 infection, the authors wrote.
The researchers therefore embarked on a case series looking at 28 HT recipients with COVID-19 infection (median age, 64.0 years; interquartile range, 53.5-70.5; 79% male) to “describe the outcomes of recipients of HT who are chronically immunosuppressed and develop COVID-19 and raise important questions about the role of the immune system in the process.”
The median time from HT to study period was 8.6 (IQR, 4.2-14.5) years. Most patients had numerous comorbidities.
“The presentation of COVID-19 was similar to nontransplant patients with fever, dyspnea, cough, and GI symptoms,” Dr. Uriel reported.
No protective effect
Twenty-two patients (79%) required admission to the hospital, seven of whom (25%) required admission to the ICU and mechanical ventilation.
Despite the presence of immunosuppressive therapy, all patients had significant elevation of inflammatory biomarkers (median peak high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], 11.83 mg/dL; IQR, 7.44-19.26; median peak interleukin [IL]-6, 105 pg/mL; IQR, 38-296).
Three-quarters had myocardial injury, with a median high-sensitivity troponin T of 0.055 (0.0205 - 0.1345) ng/mL.
Treatments of COVID-19 included hydroxychloroquine (18 patients; 78%), high-dose corticosteroids (eight patients; 47%), and IL-6 receptor antagonists (six patients; 26%).
Moreover, during hospitalization, mycophenolate mofetil was discontinued in most (70%) patients, and one-quarter had a reduction in their calcineurin inhibitor dose.
“Heart transplant recipients generally require more intense immunosuppressive therapy than most other solid organ transplant recipients, and this high baseline immunosuppression increases their propensity to develop infections and their likelihood of experiencing severe manifestations of infections,” Dr. Uriel commented.
“With COVID-19, in which the body’s inflammatory reaction appears to play a role in disease severity, there has been a question of whether immunosuppression may offer a protective effect,” he continued.
“This case series suggests that this is not the case, although this would need to be confirmed in larger studies,” he said.
Low threshold
Among the 22 patients who were admitted to the hospital, half were discharged home and four (18%) were still hospitalized at the end of the study.
Of the seven patients who died, two died at the study center, and five died in an outside institution.
“In the HT population, social distancing (or isolation), strict use of masks when in public, proper handwashing, and sanitization of surfaces are of paramount importance in the prevention of COVID-19 infection,” Dr. Uriel stated.
“In addition, we have restricted these patients’ contact with the hospital as much as possible during the pandemic,” he said.
However, “there should be a low threshold to hospitalize heart transplant patients who develop infection with COVID-19. Furthermore, in our series, outcomes were better for patients hospitalized at the transplant center; therefore, strong consideration should be given to transferring HT patients when hospitalized at another hospital,” he added.
The authors emphasized that COVID-19 patients “will require ongoing monitoring in the recovery phase, as an immunosuppression regimen is reintroduced and the consequences to the allograft itself become apparent.”
Vulnerable population
Commenting on the study, Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSc, William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, suggested that “in epidemiological terms, [the findings] might not look as bad as the way they are reflected in the paper.”
Given that Columbia is “one of the larger heart transplant centers in the U.S., following probably 1,000 patients, having only 22 out of perhaps thousands whom they transplanted or are actively following would actually represent a low serious infection rate,” said Dr. Mehra, who is also the executive director of the Center for Advanced Heart Disease at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, also in Boston.
“We must not forget to emphasize that, when assessing these case fatality rates, we must look at the entire population at risk, not only the handful that we were able to observe,” explained Dr. Mehra, who was not involved with the study.
Moreover, the patients were “older and had comorbidities, with poor underlying kidney function and other complications, and underlying coronary artery disease in the transplanted heart,” so “it would not surprise me that they had such a high fatality rate, since they had a high degree of vulnerability,” he said.
Dr. Mehra, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation, said that the journal has received manuscripts still in the review process that suggest different fatality rates than those found in the current case series.
However, he acknowledged that, because these are patients with serious vulnerability due to underlying heart disease, “you can’t be lackadaisical and need to do everything to decrease this vulnerability.”
The authors noted that, although their study did not show a protective effect from immunosuppression against COVID-19, further studies are needed to assess each individual immunosuppressive agent and provide a definitive answer.
The study was supported by a grant to one of the investigators from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Uriel reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed in the publication. Dr. Mehra reports no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New guidance to optimize antipsychotic treatment
A new consensus statement recommends monitoring antipsychotic blood levels, also known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), to inform treatment decisions and optimize safety and efficacy.
The statement, jointly authored by experts from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) and the Germany-based Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Task Force of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie, recommends antipsychotic TDM, particularly for specific patient groups and for patients with suspected nonadherence.
“This [TDM] is a valuable and reliable instrument for personalizing treatment, which is an increasing focus today – individualizing and tailoring pharmacotherapy,” lead author Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, and Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.
“I am particularly satisfied to say that this paper adds much knowledge and is a holistic approach, focusing not only on theoretical knowledge but also aiming to make the life of clinicians easier, providing more of an algorithm and decision-making instrument for clinical use in everyday clinical scenarios and problems related to antipsychotic treatment,” he added.
The study was published online May 19 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Problem-solving tool
“The therapeutic reference range for antipsychotic levels in blood consists of a lower limit, below which therapeutic response is relatively unlikely, and an upper limit, above which ADRs [adverse drug reactions] … are more likely to occur,” the authors wrote.
TDM can determine whether a patient has a subtherapeutic antipsychotic blood concentration and may explain a lack of response or a supra-therapeutic concentration, which could be associated with adverse drug reactions.
“It is important for clinicians to realize that this type of monitoring is not equally indicated for all antipsychotics and not planned as a way of providing insight if there are no questions. In other words, it is a problem-solving tool for a problem, a complicated situation, or a challenging scenario you’re trying to solve,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said.
The authors divided their recommendations regarding routine TDM for antipsychotics into four categories, based on level of evidence:
Strongly recommended (Level 1)
- Clozapine
- Fluphenazine
- Haloperidol
- Olanzapine
- Perazine
- Perphenazine
Recommended (Level 2)
- Aripiprazole
- Chlorpromazine
- Flupentixol
- Paliperidone
- Quetiapine
- Risperidone
- Sertindole
- Ziprasidone
Useful (Level 3)
- Brexpiprazole
- Cariprazine
- Chlorprothixene
- Iloperidone
- Loxapine
- Lurasidone
- Melperone
- Pimozide
Potentially useful (Level 4)
- Asenapine
Proven benefits
“We tried to narrow down specific situations and scenarios in which TDM can be useful and, in fact, has proven benefits,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
Patients who have no clinical response, even within established dose ranges, who have a recurrence or relapse during maintenance treatment, or who have ADRs are candidates for TDM.
Patients receiving polypharmacy can benefit from TDM because some coprescribed medications can raise or lower antipsychotic blood levels via overlapping metabolic pathways.
Additional populations requiring TDM are elderly patients, pregnant/lactating women, patients with medical comorbidities such as renal or hepatic disease, children/adolescents, patients with intellectual disabilities, and forensic or court-mandated patients.
Dr. Schoretsanitis noted that switching between formulations – for example from an oral to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) – can “easily be guided by regular use of TDM,” as can switching from a brand name drug to a generic.
Patients with acute inflammatory conditions, such as COVID-19, “are good candidates for TDM, even with drugs that were previously well-tolerated, because inflammation affects the way the body metabolizes drugs, leaving patients at high risk for developing toxicity,” he added.
“The most common scenario for using TDM in clinical practice is to measure adherence to antipsychotics, since TDM is one of the most reliable ways to assess adherence and thereby prevent relapse or recurrence of the disease,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
Long overdue
Sheldon Preskorn, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Kansas, Wichita, and chief science officer for KUSM-W Clinical Trials Unit, said in an interview that drawing blood 24 hours after taking the drug can help determine the patient’s clearance of the drug.
“If the level is too low, either the patient is not taking the drug at all, or is taking too little, or is a rapid metabolizer, so the dose may have to be adjusted,” said Dr. Preskorn, who was not involved in developing the consensus statement.
This is also an opportunity to initiate a conversation with patients regarding adherence, explaining that a low blood level will not have a therapeutic effect, discussing whether the patient has been taking the medication as prescribed, and addressing reasons for nonadherence, said Dr. Preskorn.
“We want to make it clear that clinicians should treat the patient, not the blood level,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
“If a person is tolerating and responding to medications well, but we measure and see something unexpected, such as low levels, this doesn’t mean we need to adjust the dose merely because the levels are low,” he added.
“Timing is very important” when measuring blood levels. For example, if a patient’s blood is usually tested in the morning but then is tested in the afternoon, he or she may exhibit a lower blood level, which may be reflective of the timing of the test rather than drug response.
“,” said Dr. Preskorn.
Also commenting on the consensus statement, Jonathan Meyer, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said it brings attention to some of the key issues associated with antipsychotic plasma monitoring and shows TDM is a valuable decision-making tool.
Dr. Meyer, who was not involved in developing the document, pointed out that it may be difficult to obtain levels on newer antipsychotics, which require specialized labs that are not widely available and sometimes take up to 2 weeks to get results.
In such cases, physicians will have to rely on their best clinical judgment to manage an inadequate response until TDM results are available.
No commercial organizations had any role in funding the statement. Dr. Schoretsanitis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meyer reports having received speaking or advising fees in the prior 12 months from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Neurocrine, Otsuka America Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Dr. Preskorn reports having been an investigator and/or a consultant to more than 140 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and device companies and to the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new consensus statement recommends monitoring antipsychotic blood levels, also known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), to inform treatment decisions and optimize safety and efficacy.
The statement, jointly authored by experts from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) and the Germany-based Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Task Force of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie, recommends antipsychotic TDM, particularly for specific patient groups and for patients with suspected nonadherence.
“This [TDM] is a valuable and reliable instrument for personalizing treatment, which is an increasing focus today – individualizing and tailoring pharmacotherapy,” lead author Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, and Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.
“I am particularly satisfied to say that this paper adds much knowledge and is a holistic approach, focusing not only on theoretical knowledge but also aiming to make the life of clinicians easier, providing more of an algorithm and decision-making instrument for clinical use in everyday clinical scenarios and problems related to antipsychotic treatment,” he added.
The study was published online May 19 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Problem-solving tool
“The therapeutic reference range for antipsychotic levels in blood consists of a lower limit, below which therapeutic response is relatively unlikely, and an upper limit, above which ADRs [adverse drug reactions] … are more likely to occur,” the authors wrote.
TDM can determine whether a patient has a subtherapeutic antipsychotic blood concentration and may explain a lack of response or a supra-therapeutic concentration, which could be associated with adverse drug reactions.
“It is important for clinicians to realize that this type of monitoring is not equally indicated for all antipsychotics and not planned as a way of providing insight if there are no questions. In other words, it is a problem-solving tool for a problem, a complicated situation, or a challenging scenario you’re trying to solve,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said.
The authors divided their recommendations regarding routine TDM for antipsychotics into four categories, based on level of evidence:
Strongly recommended (Level 1)
- Clozapine
- Fluphenazine
- Haloperidol
- Olanzapine
- Perazine
- Perphenazine
Recommended (Level 2)
- Aripiprazole
- Chlorpromazine
- Flupentixol
- Paliperidone
- Quetiapine
- Risperidone
- Sertindole
- Ziprasidone
Useful (Level 3)
- Brexpiprazole
- Cariprazine
- Chlorprothixene
- Iloperidone
- Loxapine
- Lurasidone
- Melperone
- Pimozide
Potentially useful (Level 4)
- Asenapine
Proven benefits
“We tried to narrow down specific situations and scenarios in which TDM can be useful and, in fact, has proven benefits,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
Patients who have no clinical response, even within established dose ranges, who have a recurrence or relapse during maintenance treatment, or who have ADRs are candidates for TDM.
Patients receiving polypharmacy can benefit from TDM because some coprescribed medications can raise or lower antipsychotic blood levels via overlapping metabolic pathways.
Additional populations requiring TDM are elderly patients, pregnant/lactating women, patients with medical comorbidities such as renal or hepatic disease, children/adolescents, patients with intellectual disabilities, and forensic or court-mandated patients.
Dr. Schoretsanitis noted that switching between formulations – for example from an oral to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) – can “easily be guided by regular use of TDM,” as can switching from a brand name drug to a generic.
Patients with acute inflammatory conditions, such as COVID-19, “are good candidates for TDM, even with drugs that were previously well-tolerated, because inflammation affects the way the body metabolizes drugs, leaving patients at high risk for developing toxicity,” he added.
“The most common scenario for using TDM in clinical practice is to measure adherence to antipsychotics, since TDM is one of the most reliable ways to assess adherence and thereby prevent relapse or recurrence of the disease,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
Long overdue
Sheldon Preskorn, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Kansas, Wichita, and chief science officer for KUSM-W Clinical Trials Unit, said in an interview that drawing blood 24 hours after taking the drug can help determine the patient’s clearance of the drug.
“If the level is too low, either the patient is not taking the drug at all, or is taking too little, or is a rapid metabolizer, so the dose may have to be adjusted,” said Dr. Preskorn, who was not involved in developing the consensus statement.
This is also an opportunity to initiate a conversation with patients regarding adherence, explaining that a low blood level will not have a therapeutic effect, discussing whether the patient has been taking the medication as prescribed, and addressing reasons for nonadherence, said Dr. Preskorn.
“We want to make it clear that clinicians should treat the patient, not the blood level,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
“If a person is tolerating and responding to medications well, but we measure and see something unexpected, such as low levels, this doesn’t mean we need to adjust the dose merely because the levels are low,” he added.
“Timing is very important” when measuring blood levels. For example, if a patient’s blood is usually tested in the morning but then is tested in the afternoon, he or she may exhibit a lower blood level, which may be reflective of the timing of the test rather than drug response.
“,” said Dr. Preskorn.
Also commenting on the consensus statement, Jonathan Meyer, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said it brings attention to some of the key issues associated with antipsychotic plasma monitoring and shows TDM is a valuable decision-making tool.
Dr. Meyer, who was not involved in developing the document, pointed out that it may be difficult to obtain levels on newer antipsychotics, which require specialized labs that are not widely available and sometimes take up to 2 weeks to get results.
In such cases, physicians will have to rely on their best clinical judgment to manage an inadequate response until TDM results are available.
No commercial organizations had any role in funding the statement. Dr. Schoretsanitis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meyer reports having received speaking or advising fees in the prior 12 months from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Neurocrine, Otsuka America Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Dr. Preskorn reports having been an investigator and/or a consultant to more than 140 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and device companies and to the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
A new consensus statement recommends monitoring antipsychotic blood levels, also known as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), to inform treatment decisions and optimize safety and efficacy.
The statement, jointly authored by experts from the American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology (ASCP) and the Germany-based Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Task Force of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie, recommends antipsychotic TDM, particularly for specific patient groups and for patients with suspected nonadherence.
“This [TDM] is a valuable and reliable instrument for personalizing treatment, which is an increasing focus today – individualizing and tailoring pharmacotherapy,” lead author Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, and Center for Psychiatric Neuroscience, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, said in an interview.
“I am particularly satisfied to say that this paper adds much knowledge and is a holistic approach, focusing not only on theoretical knowledge but also aiming to make the life of clinicians easier, providing more of an algorithm and decision-making instrument for clinical use in everyday clinical scenarios and problems related to antipsychotic treatment,” he added.
The study was published online May 19 in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Problem-solving tool
“The therapeutic reference range for antipsychotic levels in blood consists of a lower limit, below which therapeutic response is relatively unlikely, and an upper limit, above which ADRs [adverse drug reactions] … are more likely to occur,” the authors wrote.
TDM can determine whether a patient has a subtherapeutic antipsychotic blood concentration and may explain a lack of response or a supra-therapeutic concentration, which could be associated with adverse drug reactions.
“It is important for clinicians to realize that this type of monitoring is not equally indicated for all antipsychotics and not planned as a way of providing insight if there are no questions. In other words, it is a problem-solving tool for a problem, a complicated situation, or a challenging scenario you’re trying to solve,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said.
The authors divided their recommendations regarding routine TDM for antipsychotics into four categories, based on level of evidence:
Strongly recommended (Level 1)
- Clozapine
- Fluphenazine
- Haloperidol
- Olanzapine
- Perazine
- Perphenazine
Recommended (Level 2)
- Aripiprazole
- Chlorpromazine
- Flupentixol
- Paliperidone
- Quetiapine
- Risperidone
- Sertindole
- Ziprasidone
Useful (Level 3)
- Brexpiprazole
- Cariprazine
- Chlorprothixene
- Iloperidone
- Loxapine
- Lurasidone
- Melperone
- Pimozide
Potentially useful (Level 4)
- Asenapine
Proven benefits
“We tried to narrow down specific situations and scenarios in which TDM can be useful and, in fact, has proven benefits,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
Patients who have no clinical response, even within established dose ranges, who have a recurrence or relapse during maintenance treatment, or who have ADRs are candidates for TDM.
Patients receiving polypharmacy can benefit from TDM because some coprescribed medications can raise or lower antipsychotic blood levels via overlapping metabolic pathways.
Additional populations requiring TDM are elderly patients, pregnant/lactating women, patients with medical comorbidities such as renal or hepatic disease, children/adolescents, patients with intellectual disabilities, and forensic or court-mandated patients.
Dr. Schoretsanitis noted that switching between formulations – for example from an oral to a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (LAI) – can “easily be guided by regular use of TDM,” as can switching from a brand name drug to a generic.
Patients with acute inflammatory conditions, such as COVID-19, “are good candidates for TDM, even with drugs that were previously well-tolerated, because inflammation affects the way the body metabolizes drugs, leaving patients at high risk for developing toxicity,” he added.
“The most common scenario for using TDM in clinical practice is to measure adherence to antipsychotics, since TDM is one of the most reliable ways to assess adherence and thereby prevent relapse or recurrence of the disease,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
Long overdue
Sheldon Preskorn, MD, professor of psychiatry, University of Kansas, Wichita, and chief science officer for KUSM-W Clinical Trials Unit, said in an interview that drawing blood 24 hours after taking the drug can help determine the patient’s clearance of the drug.
“If the level is too low, either the patient is not taking the drug at all, or is taking too little, or is a rapid metabolizer, so the dose may have to be adjusted,” said Dr. Preskorn, who was not involved in developing the consensus statement.
This is also an opportunity to initiate a conversation with patients regarding adherence, explaining that a low blood level will not have a therapeutic effect, discussing whether the patient has been taking the medication as prescribed, and addressing reasons for nonadherence, said Dr. Preskorn.
“We want to make it clear that clinicians should treat the patient, not the blood level,” said Dr. Schoretsanitis.
“If a person is tolerating and responding to medications well, but we measure and see something unexpected, such as low levels, this doesn’t mean we need to adjust the dose merely because the levels are low,” he added.
“Timing is very important” when measuring blood levels. For example, if a patient’s blood is usually tested in the morning but then is tested in the afternoon, he or she may exhibit a lower blood level, which may be reflective of the timing of the test rather than drug response.
“,” said Dr. Preskorn.
Also commenting on the consensus statement, Jonathan Meyer, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry, University of California, San Diego, said it brings attention to some of the key issues associated with antipsychotic plasma monitoring and shows TDM is a valuable decision-making tool.
Dr. Meyer, who was not involved in developing the document, pointed out that it may be difficult to obtain levels on newer antipsychotics, which require specialized labs that are not widely available and sometimes take up to 2 weeks to get results.
In such cases, physicians will have to rely on their best clinical judgment to manage an inadequate response until TDM results are available.
No commercial organizations had any role in funding the statement. Dr. Schoretsanitis has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Meyer reports having received speaking or advising fees in the prior 12 months from Acadia Pharmaceuticals, Alkermes, Allergan (now AbbVie), Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Neurocrine, Otsuka America Inc., Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Dr. Preskorn reports having been an investigator and/or a consultant to more than 140 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, diagnostic, and device companies and to the Food and Drug Administration and other federal agencies.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Domestic violence amid COVID-19: Helping your patients from afar
Roger R., MD, a primary care physician from Philadelphia, set up a telemedicine appointment with a 24-year-old female patient who was experiencing headaches and was worried she might have COVID-19.
During the televisit, Dr. R. noticed that “Tonya” (not her real name) had a purplish bruise under her right eye. When asked how she got the bruise, Tonya said she had bumped into a dresser. The physician suspected abuse. He then heard a man’s voice in the background and thought it might belong to the abuser. “Is this a good time for you to talk?” he asked Tonya.
Tonya hesitated.
“When might be a better time?”
Tonya suggested an alternate time, and the physician called her then. During the visit, she shared that her fiancé, a car salesman who was also sheltering at home, was punching her.
“He always had a bad temper. Once he shoved me, but he’s never hit me before. And when he was upset, we used to go out to eat and he calmed down. Now, we’re stuck inside, we can’t even get away from each other to go to work, and he’s getting scary,” she told the doctor.
The physician asked if she would like to be connected with a domestic violence counselor. When Tonya agreed, he called Jessica DuBois Palardy, a licensed social worker and the program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, a Philadelphia-based collaborative project of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Lutheran Settlement House’s Bilingual Domestic Violence Program.
A ‘horrifying’ trend
Tonya’s story is not unique. A United Nations report shows that there has been a “horrifying global surge in domestic violence” linked to “lockdowns imposed by the governments responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The United States is no exception – 2,345 calls were placed to the National Domestic Violence Hotline during March 16–April 6, 2020.
Carole Warshaw, MD, director of the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health in Chicago, said, “We know that intimate partner violence is increasing among people sheltering at home, and that abuse has become more severe.”
Even in nonabusive situations, being confined together at close quarters, often amid family stress and financial hardship, can be wearing, and tempers can flare. In an abusive relationship, “the main contributor to violence during shelter-in-place restrictions is that the isolation gives abusers more opportunities for controlling their partners, who have fewer options for accessing safety and support,” Dr. Warshaw said.
It is critical to “approach every clinical encounter knowing that domestic violence may be at play,” she emphasized.
Physicians might be the most important lifeline
Physicians are already facing myriad COVID-19–related challenges, and having another concern to keep in mind may be daunting.
“We’re in uncharted territory and we’re all trying to figure out how to navigate this time, how to practice medicine via phone and video conferences, and how to deal with the financial repercussions of the pandemic – not to mention concern for the health of our families,” said Peter F. Cronholm, MD, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “So maintaining vigilance is often difficult. Nevertheless, it’s important not to let this critical issue fall to the wayside.”
Marcella Nyachogo, MSW, a licensed social worker and assistant director of the Bilingual Domestic Violence Program, noted that physicians and other health care providers “may be the only people the patient interacts with, since the abuser may cut the survivor off from family and friends. And because the survivor isn’t leaving the house, he or she doesn’t have an opportunity to interact with coworkers or others – which makes health care providers the most important lifeline.”
COVID-19 as a weapon of abuse
Carey Watson, MD, regional medical director of the Family Violence Prevention Program at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, points to a disturbing trend in COVID-19–related abuse.
“Unfortunately, I’m hearing more and more accounts of how the illness itself can be one more weapon in the abuser’s arsenal,” she said.
Experts say that increasingly, abusers are claiming that their partner, who is employed in an “essential” job outside the home, is carrying the virus, and they are using this as a means of control and manipulation.
This is especially true of abusive partners of health care providers, Dr. Watson noted. She recounted the story of a divorced nurse whose husband did not allow her to have contact with their children, allegedly out of concern that she might have COVID-19, and would threaten her with a gun when she protested.
“It is important to keep this abusive tactic in mind, not only when dealing with patients but also with fellow physicians and health care professionals, and check in to see if everything is okay – especially if they seem particularly stressed out or distant,” Dr. Watson recommended.
Trust your clinical gut
How can you tell if your patients might be experiencing abuse when you’re not seeing them in person?
Pay attention to subtle signals and “trust your clinical gut when something doesn’t feel right,” Ms. Nyachogo advised.
If a patient’s demeanor is jittery or anxious or if someone next to him or her is answering all the questions or interrupting the visit, these could be red flags.
Dr. Cronholm added that telemedicine visits offer a “rare window into a patient’s home life that would not be available in an office visit.” For example, a house in disarray, the presence of broken objects, or the presence of another person hovering in the background suggests the need for further exploration.
“The main thing for all providers to keep in mind is ‘first, do no harm,’ ” Ms. Nyachogo emphasized.
“Our agency has been working for years with medical professionals in how to screen and connect folks with help most effectively and safely, and – although the specific situations posed by COVID are new – the overall approach is the same, which is to proceed with caution in how you approach the subject and how you make referrals,” she said.
Begin by asking if it is a convenient time to talk.
“This question takes the onus off the patient, who may not know how to communicate that she has no privacy or is in the middle of an argument,” explained Elsa Swenson, program manager of Home Free community program, which serves individuals experiencing domestic violence. The program is part of Minnesota-based Missions Inc. Programs, which serves those experiencing domestic abuse and chemical dependency.
If the patient indicates that it isn’t a convenient time to talk, find out when would be a better time. “This might be difficult for busy physicians and may not be what they’re accustomed to when calling a patient at home, but the patient’s circumstances are unknown to you, so it’s essential to organize around their ability to talk,” Ms. Swenson noted.
‘Are you alone?’
Another important piece of information is whether the patient has privacy – which can be tricky if the abuser is standing right there.
“You don’t want to tip the abuser off to your concerns, so you need to frame the question in a neutral way,” Dr. Watson advised.
For example, you might say that HIPAA laws require that you conduct the consultation with no one else present, and find out if there is a location in the house where the patient can have privacy.
It might be easier to talk on the phone than via video, suggests Florence Remes, a New Jersey–based licensed social worker who specializes in domestic violence. Going into another room and playing music or turning on the television might make it less obvious that a call is taking place, and the abuser would be less likely to overhear the caller’s conversation.
Dr. Watson suggested that questions about abuse might be included with other questions and asked in a simple yes/no format. “I’d like to ask you some standard questions I’m asking everyone during the pandemic. Do you have a cough or fever? Do you have any other physical symptoms? Do you have access to hand sanitizer? How is your sleep? Are you experiencing stress? Do you feel safe at home?”
The abuser, if present, will only hear the patient’s “yes” or “no” without knowing the question. If the patient indicates that she is being abused but is unable to talk, a later time can be arranged to further explore the issue.
Technology is a double-edged sword
Modern technologies have been a great boon to patients and physicians during this time of social distancing, allowing ongoing contact and health care when it would not otherwise have been possible. On the other hand, technology is fraught with potential dangers that can jeopardize the patient’s safety and compromise privacy.
Ms. Remes recounted the story of “Susan,” a client with whom she had been conducting teletherapy visits using an approved HIPAA-compliant telemedicine forum. Susan was working from home because of shelter-in-place restrictions. Her husband had been abusive, and Susan was concerned he might be “sabotaging” the household’s WiFi to isolate her from outside sources of support.
At the recommendation of Ms. Remes, Susan continued sessions either via phone calls or by using the WhatsApp program on her cellphone. Many of the requirements governing HIPAA privacy regulations have been temporarily relaxed, and clinicians can use non–encrypted forms of transmission, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, or Skype, if no other platform is available.
But even cellphones have risks, Dr. Warshaw noted. The patient’s abuser might track texts or look at call logs – especially on unsecured platforms. It’s advisable to ask patients about who has access to their phone and computer and discuss ways to increase security.
Follow the patient’s lead
Proceed slowly and start with nonthreatening questions, Ms. Palardy advised. “I notice you have some injuries; can you tell me how you got them? Did someone hurt you? What does your relationship look like when you argue? Is there anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe?”
Emphasizing that you are asking these questions because of care and concern is reassuring and helps patients to feel they are not alone, Ms. Nyachogo pointed out.
“As your doctor, I’m worried about your health and (if relevant) your children’s safety. I can help connect you with counseling and support, legal resources, and a shelter, and everything is free and confidential. Would you be interested?” she said.
If the client acknowledges abuse, “follow their lead, but don’t push too hard,” Ms. Nyachogo warned.
“It is the client’s choice whether or not to take action,” she noted. “I’ve met survivors who said that it wasn’t until a doctor or nurse expressed concern about bruises that it even occurred to them that they were being abused. Some lied to the doctor about how they got hurt – but the question planted a seed, even though it might have taken years to follow up on the referral,” she said.
What if the patient doesn’t want to get help?
If a patient is not ready to seek help, you can create a home-safety plan. This might include setting follow-up times. If you don’t hear from him or her, you should then call the police. Or you might create a “code word,” such as “apple pie.” If the patient uses that word during a session, you know her life is in danger, Ms. Remes suggested.
Providing written information about how to get help is important but can be problematic if the abuser finds it.
Ms. Nyachogo recommends e-mailing follow-up materials that cover a variety of topics, such as keeping safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, relaxation, healthy eating, getting exercise while homebound, activities for children, and suggestions for hotlines and other resources if one is feeling suicidal or unsafe.
“If you present these as your ‘standard’ follow-up materials, the abuser is less likely to become suspicious,” Ms. Nyachogo noted.
Resources are available during COVID-19
All of the experts emphasize that resources for victims of domestic violence remain available during the COVID-19 pandemic, although some shelters may be operating at reduced capacity. Some agencies are finding alternatives to group shelters, such as hotels or Airbnb, which carry less risk of catching COVID-19.
Referring a patient to domestic violence resources is a delicate process. “You don’t want referring the patient for help to further endanger their life,” Ms. Nyachogo said.
The more you can take the burden off the patient, the better. If she is interested in getting help, you can call a domestic violence counselor or advocate while she is on the phone.
“This type of ‘warm handoff’ is what Tonya’s physician did,” Ms. Palardy recounted.
A warm handoff requires that physicians be familiar with domestic violence resources, Dr. Warshaw emphasized.
“Don’t wait until you are working with someone who needs help to find out where to refer them. Take the time to proactively research local agencies specializing in domestic violence and have their phone numbers on hand, so you can offer resources immediately if the person is interested,” she advised. The National Domestic Violence Hotline can also assist with safety planning and access to local resources.
‘Thinking on your feet’ critical for physicians
Addressing domestic violence during this unprecedented time requires “thinking on your feet” about novel forms of detection and intervention, Dr. Watson said. This involves a combination of clinical acumen, creativity, and finely honed intuition.
Ms. Nyachogo added, “Keeping an eye on domestic violence can feel like an extra burden, but don’t forget that it is lifesaving work.”
Resources
National Domestic Violence Hotline
- 800-799-SAFE (7233)
- The patient can also text LOVEIS to 22522.
National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health
- Provides resources for health care, mental health, and substance use treatment and recovery support providers on responding to domestic violence and other trauma.
- Provides resources for professionals and patients regarding access to substance use and mental health care during the COVID-1 pandemic.
- Provides support for parents, caregivers, and children during the pandemic.
- Provides resources for advocates serving families affected by domestic violence.
- A state-by-state guide to local resources
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute
STOP Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
New Jersey Coalition for Domestic Violence
American Bar Association COVID-19 resources for communities
- Text HOME to 741741.
National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) COVID-19 Technology Safety
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Roger R., MD, a primary care physician from Philadelphia, set up a telemedicine appointment with a 24-year-old female patient who was experiencing headaches and was worried she might have COVID-19.
During the televisit, Dr. R. noticed that “Tonya” (not her real name) had a purplish bruise under her right eye. When asked how she got the bruise, Tonya said she had bumped into a dresser. The physician suspected abuse. He then heard a man’s voice in the background and thought it might belong to the abuser. “Is this a good time for you to talk?” he asked Tonya.
Tonya hesitated.
“When might be a better time?”
Tonya suggested an alternate time, and the physician called her then. During the visit, she shared that her fiancé, a car salesman who was also sheltering at home, was punching her.
“He always had a bad temper. Once he shoved me, but he’s never hit me before. And when he was upset, we used to go out to eat and he calmed down. Now, we’re stuck inside, we can’t even get away from each other to go to work, and he’s getting scary,” she told the doctor.
The physician asked if she would like to be connected with a domestic violence counselor. When Tonya agreed, he called Jessica DuBois Palardy, a licensed social worker and the program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, a Philadelphia-based collaborative project of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Lutheran Settlement House’s Bilingual Domestic Violence Program.
A ‘horrifying’ trend
Tonya’s story is not unique. A United Nations report shows that there has been a “horrifying global surge in domestic violence” linked to “lockdowns imposed by the governments responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The United States is no exception – 2,345 calls were placed to the National Domestic Violence Hotline during March 16–April 6, 2020.
Carole Warshaw, MD, director of the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health in Chicago, said, “We know that intimate partner violence is increasing among people sheltering at home, and that abuse has become more severe.”
Even in nonabusive situations, being confined together at close quarters, often amid family stress and financial hardship, can be wearing, and tempers can flare. In an abusive relationship, “the main contributor to violence during shelter-in-place restrictions is that the isolation gives abusers more opportunities for controlling their partners, who have fewer options for accessing safety and support,” Dr. Warshaw said.
It is critical to “approach every clinical encounter knowing that domestic violence may be at play,” she emphasized.
Physicians might be the most important lifeline
Physicians are already facing myriad COVID-19–related challenges, and having another concern to keep in mind may be daunting.
“We’re in uncharted territory and we’re all trying to figure out how to navigate this time, how to practice medicine via phone and video conferences, and how to deal with the financial repercussions of the pandemic – not to mention concern for the health of our families,” said Peter F. Cronholm, MD, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “So maintaining vigilance is often difficult. Nevertheless, it’s important not to let this critical issue fall to the wayside.”
Marcella Nyachogo, MSW, a licensed social worker and assistant director of the Bilingual Domestic Violence Program, noted that physicians and other health care providers “may be the only people the patient interacts with, since the abuser may cut the survivor off from family and friends. And because the survivor isn’t leaving the house, he or she doesn’t have an opportunity to interact with coworkers or others – which makes health care providers the most important lifeline.”
COVID-19 as a weapon of abuse
Carey Watson, MD, regional medical director of the Family Violence Prevention Program at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, points to a disturbing trend in COVID-19–related abuse.
“Unfortunately, I’m hearing more and more accounts of how the illness itself can be one more weapon in the abuser’s arsenal,” she said.
Experts say that increasingly, abusers are claiming that their partner, who is employed in an “essential” job outside the home, is carrying the virus, and they are using this as a means of control and manipulation.
This is especially true of abusive partners of health care providers, Dr. Watson noted. She recounted the story of a divorced nurse whose husband did not allow her to have contact with their children, allegedly out of concern that she might have COVID-19, and would threaten her with a gun when she protested.
“It is important to keep this abusive tactic in mind, not only when dealing with patients but also with fellow physicians and health care professionals, and check in to see if everything is okay – especially if they seem particularly stressed out or distant,” Dr. Watson recommended.
Trust your clinical gut
How can you tell if your patients might be experiencing abuse when you’re not seeing them in person?
Pay attention to subtle signals and “trust your clinical gut when something doesn’t feel right,” Ms. Nyachogo advised.
If a patient’s demeanor is jittery or anxious or if someone next to him or her is answering all the questions or interrupting the visit, these could be red flags.
Dr. Cronholm added that telemedicine visits offer a “rare window into a patient’s home life that would not be available in an office visit.” For example, a house in disarray, the presence of broken objects, or the presence of another person hovering in the background suggests the need for further exploration.
“The main thing for all providers to keep in mind is ‘first, do no harm,’ ” Ms. Nyachogo emphasized.
“Our agency has been working for years with medical professionals in how to screen and connect folks with help most effectively and safely, and – although the specific situations posed by COVID are new – the overall approach is the same, which is to proceed with caution in how you approach the subject and how you make referrals,” she said.
Begin by asking if it is a convenient time to talk.
“This question takes the onus off the patient, who may not know how to communicate that she has no privacy or is in the middle of an argument,” explained Elsa Swenson, program manager of Home Free community program, which serves individuals experiencing domestic violence. The program is part of Minnesota-based Missions Inc. Programs, which serves those experiencing domestic abuse and chemical dependency.
If the patient indicates that it isn’t a convenient time to talk, find out when would be a better time. “This might be difficult for busy physicians and may not be what they’re accustomed to when calling a patient at home, but the patient’s circumstances are unknown to you, so it’s essential to organize around their ability to talk,” Ms. Swenson noted.
‘Are you alone?’
Another important piece of information is whether the patient has privacy – which can be tricky if the abuser is standing right there.
“You don’t want to tip the abuser off to your concerns, so you need to frame the question in a neutral way,” Dr. Watson advised.
For example, you might say that HIPAA laws require that you conduct the consultation with no one else present, and find out if there is a location in the house where the patient can have privacy.
It might be easier to talk on the phone than via video, suggests Florence Remes, a New Jersey–based licensed social worker who specializes in domestic violence. Going into another room and playing music or turning on the television might make it less obvious that a call is taking place, and the abuser would be less likely to overhear the caller’s conversation.
Dr. Watson suggested that questions about abuse might be included with other questions and asked in a simple yes/no format. “I’d like to ask you some standard questions I’m asking everyone during the pandemic. Do you have a cough or fever? Do you have any other physical symptoms? Do you have access to hand sanitizer? How is your sleep? Are you experiencing stress? Do you feel safe at home?”
The abuser, if present, will only hear the patient’s “yes” or “no” without knowing the question. If the patient indicates that she is being abused but is unable to talk, a later time can be arranged to further explore the issue.
Technology is a double-edged sword
Modern technologies have been a great boon to patients and physicians during this time of social distancing, allowing ongoing contact and health care when it would not otherwise have been possible. On the other hand, technology is fraught with potential dangers that can jeopardize the patient’s safety and compromise privacy.
Ms. Remes recounted the story of “Susan,” a client with whom she had been conducting teletherapy visits using an approved HIPAA-compliant telemedicine forum. Susan was working from home because of shelter-in-place restrictions. Her husband had been abusive, and Susan was concerned he might be “sabotaging” the household’s WiFi to isolate her from outside sources of support.
At the recommendation of Ms. Remes, Susan continued sessions either via phone calls or by using the WhatsApp program on her cellphone. Many of the requirements governing HIPAA privacy regulations have been temporarily relaxed, and clinicians can use non–encrypted forms of transmission, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, or Skype, if no other platform is available.
But even cellphones have risks, Dr. Warshaw noted. The patient’s abuser might track texts or look at call logs – especially on unsecured platforms. It’s advisable to ask patients about who has access to their phone and computer and discuss ways to increase security.
Follow the patient’s lead
Proceed slowly and start with nonthreatening questions, Ms. Palardy advised. “I notice you have some injuries; can you tell me how you got them? Did someone hurt you? What does your relationship look like when you argue? Is there anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe?”
Emphasizing that you are asking these questions because of care and concern is reassuring and helps patients to feel they are not alone, Ms. Nyachogo pointed out.
“As your doctor, I’m worried about your health and (if relevant) your children’s safety. I can help connect you with counseling and support, legal resources, and a shelter, and everything is free and confidential. Would you be interested?” she said.
If the client acknowledges abuse, “follow their lead, but don’t push too hard,” Ms. Nyachogo warned.
“It is the client’s choice whether or not to take action,” she noted. “I’ve met survivors who said that it wasn’t until a doctor or nurse expressed concern about bruises that it even occurred to them that they were being abused. Some lied to the doctor about how they got hurt – but the question planted a seed, even though it might have taken years to follow up on the referral,” she said.
What if the patient doesn’t want to get help?
If a patient is not ready to seek help, you can create a home-safety plan. This might include setting follow-up times. If you don’t hear from him or her, you should then call the police. Or you might create a “code word,” such as “apple pie.” If the patient uses that word during a session, you know her life is in danger, Ms. Remes suggested.
Providing written information about how to get help is important but can be problematic if the abuser finds it.
Ms. Nyachogo recommends e-mailing follow-up materials that cover a variety of topics, such as keeping safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, relaxation, healthy eating, getting exercise while homebound, activities for children, and suggestions for hotlines and other resources if one is feeling suicidal or unsafe.
“If you present these as your ‘standard’ follow-up materials, the abuser is less likely to become suspicious,” Ms. Nyachogo noted.
Resources are available during COVID-19
All of the experts emphasize that resources for victims of domestic violence remain available during the COVID-19 pandemic, although some shelters may be operating at reduced capacity. Some agencies are finding alternatives to group shelters, such as hotels or Airbnb, which carry less risk of catching COVID-19.
Referring a patient to domestic violence resources is a delicate process. “You don’t want referring the patient for help to further endanger their life,” Ms. Nyachogo said.
The more you can take the burden off the patient, the better. If she is interested in getting help, you can call a domestic violence counselor or advocate while she is on the phone.
“This type of ‘warm handoff’ is what Tonya’s physician did,” Ms. Palardy recounted.
A warm handoff requires that physicians be familiar with domestic violence resources, Dr. Warshaw emphasized.
“Don’t wait until you are working with someone who needs help to find out where to refer them. Take the time to proactively research local agencies specializing in domestic violence and have their phone numbers on hand, so you can offer resources immediately if the person is interested,” she advised. The National Domestic Violence Hotline can also assist with safety planning and access to local resources.
‘Thinking on your feet’ critical for physicians
Addressing domestic violence during this unprecedented time requires “thinking on your feet” about novel forms of detection and intervention, Dr. Watson said. This involves a combination of clinical acumen, creativity, and finely honed intuition.
Ms. Nyachogo added, “Keeping an eye on domestic violence can feel like an extra burden, but don’t forget that it is lifesaving work.”
Resources
National Domestic Violence Hotline
- 800-799-SAFE (7233)
- The patient can also text LOVEIS to 22522.
National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health
- Provides resources for health care, mental health, and substance use treatment and recovery support providers on responding to domestic violence and other trauma.
- Provides resources for professionals and patients regarding access to substance use and mental health care during the COVID-1 pandemic.
- Provides support for parents, caregivers, and children during the pandemic.
- Provides resources for advocates serving families affected by domestic violence.
- A state-by-state guide to local resources
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute
STOP Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
New Jersey Coalition for Domestic Violence
American Bar Association COVID-19 resources for communities
- Text HOME to 741741.
National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) COVID-19 Technology Safety
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Roger R., MD, a primary care physician from Philadelphia, set up a telemedicine appointment with a 24-year-old female patient who was experiencing headaches and was worried she might have COVID-19.
During the televisit, Dr. R. noticed that “Tonya” (not her real name) had a purplish bruise under her right eye. When asked how she got the bruise, Tonya said she had bumped into a dresser. The physician suspected abuse. He then heard a man’s voice in the background and thought it might belong to the abuser. “Is this a good time for you to talk?” he asked Tonya.
Tonya hesitated.
“When might be a better time?”
Tonya suggested an alternate time, and the physician called her then. During the visit, she shared that her fiancé, a car salesman who was also sheltering at home, was punching her.
“He always had a bad temper. Once he shoved me, but he’s never hit me before. And when he was upset, we used to go out to eat and he calmed down. Now, we’re stuck inside, we can’t even get away from each other to go to work, and he’s getting scary,” she told the doctor.
The physician asked if she would like to be connected with a domestic violence counselor. When Tonya agreed, he called Jessica DuBois Palardy, a licensed social worker and the program supervisor at STOP Intimate Partner Violence, a Philadelphia-based collaborative project of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Lutheran Settlement House’s Bilingual Domestic Violence Program.
A ‘horrifying’ trend
Tonya’s story is not unique. A United Nations report shows that there has been a “horrifying global surge in domestic violence” linked to “lockdowns imposed by the governments responding to the COVID-19 pandemic.” The United States is no exception – 2,345 calls were placed to the National Domestic Violence Hotline during March 16–April 6, 2020.
Carole Warshaw, MD, director of the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health in Chicago, said, “We know that intimate partner violence is increasing among people sheltering at home, and that abuse has become more severe.”
Even in nonabusive situations, being confined together at close quarters, often amid family stress and financial hardship, can be wearing, and tempers can flare. In an abusive relationship, “the main contributor to violence during shelter-in-place restrictions is that the isolation gives abusers more opportunities for controlling their partners, who have fewer options for accessing safety and support,” Dr. Warshaw said.
It is critical to “approach every clinical encounter knowing that domestic violence may be at play,” she emphasized.
Physicians might be the most important lifeline
Physicians are already facing myriad COVID-19–related challenges, and having another concern to keep in mind may be daunting.
“We’re in uncharted territory and we’re all trying to figure out how to navigate this time, how to practice medicine via phone and video conferences, and how to deal with the financial repercussions of the pandemic – not to mention concern for the health of our families,” said Peter F. Cronholm, MD, associate professor of family medicine and community health at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “So maintaining vigilance is often difficult. Nevertheless, it’s important not to let this critical issue fall to the wayside.”
Marcella Nyachogo, MSW, a licensed social worker and assistant director of the Bilingual Domestic Violence Program, noted that physicians and other health care providers “may be the only people the patient interacts with, since the abuser may cut the survivor off from family and friends. And because the survivor isn’t leaving the house, he or she doesn’t have an opportunity to interact with coworkers or others – which makes health care providers the most important lifeline.”
COVID-19 as a weapon of abuse
Carey Watson, MD, regional medical director of the Family Violence Prevention Program at Kaiser Permanente in northern California, points to a disturbing trend in COVID-19–related abuse.
“Unfortunately, I’m hearing more and more accounts of how the illness itself can be one more weapon in the abuser’s arsenal,” she said.
Experts say that increasingly, abusers are claiming that their partner, who is employed in an “essential” job outside the home, is carrying the virus, and they are using this as a means of control and manipulation.
This is especially true of abusive partners of health care providers, Dr. Watson noted. She recounted the story of a divorced nurse whose husband did not allow her to have contact with their children, allegedly out of concern that she might have COVID-19, and would threaten her with a gun when she protested.
“It is important to keep this abusive tactic in mind, not only when dealing with patients but also with fellow physicians and health care professionals, and check in to see if everything is okay – especially if they seem particularly stressed out or distant,” Dr. Watson recommended.
Trust your clinical gut
How can you tell if your patients might be experiencing abuse when you’re not seeing them in person?
Pay attention to subtle signals and “trust your clinical gut when something doesn’t feel right,” Ms. Nyachogo advised.
If a patient’s demeanor is jittery or anxious or if someone next to him or her is answering all the questions or interrupting the visit, these could be red flags.
Dr. Cronholm added that telemedicine visits offer a “rare window into a patient’s home life that would not be available in an office visit.” For example, a house in disarray, the presence of broken objects, or the presence of another person hovering in the background suggests the need for further exploration.
“The main thing for all providers to keep in mind is ‘first, do no harm,’ ” Ms. Nyachogo emphasized.
“Our agency has been working for years with medical professionals in how to screen and connect folks with help most effectively and safely, and – although the specific situations posed by COVID are new – the overall approach is the same, which is to proceed with caution in how you approach the subject and how you make referrals,” she said.
Begin by asking if it is a convenient time to talk.
“This question takes the onus off the patient, who may not know how to communicate that she has no privacy or is in the middle of an argument,” explained Elsa Swenson, program manager of Home Free community program, which serves individuals experiencing domestic violence. The program is part of Minnesota-based Missions Inc. Programs, which serves those experiencing domestic abuse and chemical dependency.
If the patient indicates that it isn’t a convenient time to talk, find out when would be a better time. “This might be difficult for busy physicians and may not be what they’re accustomed to when calling a patient at home, but the patient’s circumstances are unknown to you, so it’s essential to organize around their ability to talk,” Ms. Swenson noted.
‘Are you alone?’
Another important piece of information is whether the patient has privacy – which can be tricky if the abuser is standing right there.
“You don’t want to tip the abuser off to your concerns, so you need to frame the question in a neutral way,” Dr. Watson advised.
For example, you might say that HIPAA laws require that you conduct the consultation with no one else present, and find out if there is a location in the house where the patient can have privacy.
It might be easier to talk on the phone than via video, suggests Florence Remes, a New Jersey–based licensed social worker who specializes in domestic violence. Going into another room and playing music or turning on the television might make it less obvious that a call is taking place, and the abuser would be less likely to overhear the caller’s conversation.
Dr. Watson suggested that questions about abuse might be included with other questions and asked in a simple yes/no format. “I’d like to ask you some standard questions I’m asking everyone during the pandemic. Do you have a cough or fever? Do you have any other physical symptoms? Do you have access to hand sanitizer? How is your sleep? Are you experiencing stress? Do you feel safe at home?”
The abuser, if present, will only hear the patient’s “yes” or “no” without knowing the question. If the patient indicates that she is being abused but is unable to talk, a later time can be arranged to further explore the issue.
Technology is a double-edged sword
Modern technologies have been a great boon to patients and physicians during this time of social distancing, allowing ongoing contact and health care when it would not otherwise have been possible. On the other hand, technology is fraught with potential dangers that can jeopardize the patient’s safety and compromise privacy.
Ms. Remes recounted the story of “Susan,” a client with whom she had been conducting teletherapy visits using an approved HIPAA-compliant telemedicine forum. Susan was working from home because of shelter-in-place restrictions. Her husband had been abusive, and Susan was concerned he might be “sabotaging” the household’s WiFi to isolate her from outside sources of support.
At the recommendation of Ms. Remes, Susan continued sessions either via phone calls or by using the WhatsApp program on her cellphone. Many of the requirements governing HIPAA privacy regulations have been temporarily relaxed, and clinicians can use non–encrypted forms of transmission, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, or Skype, if no other platform is available.
But even cellphones have risks, Dr. Warshaw noted. The patient’s abuser might track texts or look at call logs – especially on unsecured platforms. It’s advisable to ask patients about who has access to their phone and computer and discuss ways to increase security.
Follow the patient’s lead
Proceed slowly and start with nonthreatening questions, Ms. Palardy advised. “I notice you have some injuries; can you tell me how you got them? Did someone hurt you? What does your relationship look like when you argue? Is there anything that makes you feel uncomfortable or unsafe?”
Emphasizing that you are asking these questions because of care and concern is reassuring and helps patients to feel they are not alone, Ms. Nyachogo pointed out.
“As your doctor, I’m worried about your health and (if relevant) your children’s safety. I can help connect you with counseling and support, legal resources, and a shelter, and everything is free and confidential. Would you be interested?” she said.
If the client acknowledges abuse, “follow their lead, but don’t push too hard,” Ms. Nyachogo warned.
“It is the client’s choice whether or not to take action,” she noted. “I’ve met survivors who said that it wasn’t until a doctor or nurse expressed concern about bruises that it even occurred to them that they were being abused. Some lied to the doctor about how they got hurt – but the question planted a seed, even though it might have taken years to follow up on the referral,” she said.
What if the patient doesn’t want to get help?
If a patient is not ready to seek help, you can create a home-safety plan. This might include setting follow-up times. If you don’t hear from him or her, you should then call the police. Or you might create a “code word,” such as “apple pie.” If the patient uses that word during a session, you know her life is in danger, Ms. Remes suggested.
Providing written information about how to get help is important but can be problematic if the abuser finds it.
Ms. Nyachogo recommends e-mailing follow-up materials that cover a variety of topics, such as keeping safe during the COVID-19 pandemic, relaxation, healthy eating, getting exercise while homebound, activities for children, and suggestions for hotlines and other resources if one is feeling suicidal or unsafe.
“If you present these as your ‘standard’ follow-up materials, the abuser is less likely to become suspicious,” Ms. Nyachogo noted.
Resources are available during COVID-19
All of the experts emphasize that resources for victims of domestic violence remain available during the COVID-19 pandemic, although some shelters may be operating at reduced capacity. Some agencies are finding alternatives to group shelters, such as hotels or Airbnb, which carry less risk of catching COVID-19.
Referring a patient to domestic violence resources is a delicate process. “You don’t want referring the patient for help to further endanger their life,” Ms. Nyachogo said.
The more you can take the burden off the patient, the better. If she is interested in getting help, you can call a domestic violence counselor or advocate while she is on the phone.
“This type of ‘warm handoff’ is what Tonya’s physician did,” Ms. Palardy recounted.
A warm handoff requires that physicians be familiar with domestic violence resources, Dr. Warshaw emphasized.
“Don’t wait until you are working with someone who needs help to find out where to refer them. Take the time to proactively research local agencies specializing in domestic violence and have their phone numbers on hand, so you can offer resources immediately if the person is interested,” she advised. The National Domestic Violence Hotline can also assist with safety planning and access to local resources.
‘Thinking on your feet’ critical for physicians
Addressing domestic violence during this unprecedented time requires “thinking on your feet” about novel forms of detection and intervention, Dr. Watson said. This involves a combination of clinical acumen, creativity, and finely honed intuition.
Ms. Nyachogo added, “Keeping an eye on domestic violence can feel like an extra burden, but don’t forget that it is lifesaving work.”
Resources
National Domestic Violence Hotline
- 800-799-SAFE (7233)
- The patient can also text LOVEIS to 22522.
National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma, and Mental Health
- Provides resources for health care, mental health, and substance use treatment and recovery support providers on responding to domestic violence and other trauma.
- Provides resources for professionals and patients regarding access to substance use and mental health care during the COVID-1 pandemic.
- Provides support for parents, caregivers, and children during the pandemic.
- Provides resources for advocates serving families affected by domestic violence.
- A state-by-state guide to local resources
Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute
STOP Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
New Jersey Coalition for Domestic Violence
American Bar Association COVID-19 resources for communities
- Text HOME to 741741.
National Network to End Domestic Violence (NNEDV) COVID-19 Technology Safety
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
New ‘atlas’ maps links between mental disorders, physical illnesses
Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.
An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.
The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.
These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.
“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.
“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New ‘atlas’
It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.
However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”
“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.
The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”
The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.
The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.
Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.
The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
‘Curious’ finding
Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.
After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.
The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).
Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”
compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).
The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).
“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.
Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
A strong case
In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”
Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”
For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.
The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.
An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.
The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.
These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.
“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.
“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New ‘atlas’
It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.
However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”
“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.
The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”
The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.
The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.
Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.
The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
‘Curious’ finding
Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.
After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.
The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).
Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”
compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).
The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).
“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.
Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
A strong case
In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”
Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”
For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.
The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Mental illnesses are associated with a significantly increased risk of subsequent physical diseases, new research shows.
An international team of researchers has created an “atlas” that maps the relationship between specific mental disorders and the risk of subsequent physical illnesses.
The researchers found that, following the diagnosis of a mental disorder, psychiatric patients are significantly more likely than the general population to develop potentially life-threatening conditions, including heart disease and stroke.
These findings, the investigators noted, highlight the need for better medical care in this vulnerable population. They have created a website with detailed information about the risks of specific physical ailments and the link to particular mental disorders.
“We found that women with anxiety disorders have a 50% increased risk of developing a heart condition or stroke – over 15 years, one in three women with anxiety disorders will develop these medical disorders,” lead investigator John McGrath, MD, PhD, University of Queensland’s Brain Institute, Brisbane, Australia, and Aarhus (Denmark) University, said in a statement.
“We also looked at men with substance use disorders such as alcohol-related disorders and found they have a 400% increased risk of gut or liver disorders, while over 15 years, one in five of them will develop gut or liver conditions,” he added.
The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
New ‘atlas’
It’s well known that patients with mental disorders have decreased quality of life, increased health care utilization, and a shorter life expectancy than individuals in the general population – about 10 years for men and 7 years for women.
However, the investigators noted, previous research examining the relationship between mental disorders and medical conditions only focused on “particular pairs or a small set of mental disorders and medical conditions.”
“We needed a comprehensive study to map the links between different types of mental disorders versus different types of general medical conditions. Our study has provided this atlas,” Dr. McGrath said in an interview.
The clinical utility of such a map could provide comprehensive data on relative and absolute risks of various medical conditions after a diagnosis of a mental disorder. This information, the researchers noted, would “help clinicians and health care planners identify the primary prevention needs of their patients.”
The study included 5.9 million people born in Denmark between 1900 and 2015 and followed them from 2000 to 2016, a total of 83.9 million person-years. The researchers followed patients for up to 17 years (2000-2016) for medical diagnoses and up to 48 years (1969-2016) for diagnoses of mental disorders.
The study’s large sample size allowed investigators to assess 10 broad types of mental disorders and 9 broad categories of medical conditions that encompassed 31 specific conditions.
Categories of medical conditions included circulatory, endocrine, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, urogenital, musculoskeletal, hematologic, neurologic, and cancer. Mental disorder categories included organic disorders such as Alzheimer’s, substance abuse disorders, schizophrenia, mood disorders, neurotic disorders, eating disorders, personality disorders, developmental disorders, behavioral/emotional disorders, and intellectual disabilities.
The researchers estimated associations between 90 pairs of mental disorders and broad-category medical conditions, as well as 310 pairs of mental disorders and specific medical conditions.
‘Curious’ finding
Individuals with mental disorders showed a higher risk of medical conditions in 76 out of 90 specific mental disorder–medical condition pairs.
After adjusting for sex, age, calendar time, and previous coexisting mental disorders, the median hazard ratio for a subsequent medical condition was 1.37 in patients with a mental disorder.
The lowest HR was 0.82 for organic mental disorders and the broad category of cancer (95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.84), and the highest was 3.62 for eating disorders and urogenital conditions (95% CI, 3.11-4.22). On the other hand, schizophrenia was associated with a reduced risk of developing musculoskeletal conditions (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.91).
Dr. McGrath described this finding as “curious” and speculated it “may be related to underlying genetic risk factors.”
compared with the matched reference group without a mood disorder (40.9% vs. 32.6%, respectively).
The risk of developing subsequent medical conditions after a mental disorder diagnosis did not remain steady over time. For instance, although mood disorders were associated with an increased risk of developing circulatory problems (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.31-1.34), the highest risk occurred during the first 6 months following diagnosis and gradually decreased over the next 15 years (HR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.29-2.48 and HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.20, respectively).
“Many people with mental disorders have unhealthy lifestyle, including low exercise, poor diet, smoking, and alcohol, which may account for the increased risk of physical illness, and also they may not seek and/or may not get quick treatment for their health conditions,” said Dr. McGrath.
Additionally, “perhaps some genetic and early life exposures, such as trauma, may increase the risk of both medical conditions and mental disorders,” he added. “We need better treatments for mental disorders, so that they do not slip into unemployment or poverty.”
A strong case
In a comment, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of Toronto and head of the mood disorders psychopharmacology unit, University Health Network, said that the research “really makes a strong case for the fact that persons who have mental disorders are at higher risk of chronic diseases, and it’s the chronic diseases that decrease their lifespan.”
Dr. McIntyre, who is also director of the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, said that the “takeaway message is that mental disorders are not just brain disorders but are multisystem disorders.”
For this reason, “the most appropriate way to provide care would be to provide a holistic approach to treat and prevent the chronic diseases that lead to increase in mortality,” recommended Dr. McIntyre, who was not involved with the current study.
The study was supported by grants from the Danish National Research Foundation, the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Novo Nordisk Foundation , the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program, the Aarhus University Research Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the European Commission, Helsefonden, the Danish Council for Independent Research, the Independent Research Fund Denmark, the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
Dr. McGrath has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. McIntyre reports receiving grants from Stanley Medical Research Institute; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases/Chinese National Natural Research Foundation; and receiving speaking/consultation fees from Lundbeck, Janssen, Shire, Purdue, Pfizer, Otsuka, Allergan, Takeda, Neurocrine, Sunovion, and Minerva.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.