Kelli Whitlock Burton

Topline results from a phase 3 trial of P2B001, a fixed-dose combination of extended release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline, showed it was superior to its individual components as a first-line treatment for early Parkinson’s disease.

Study participants also reported less daytime sleepiness with P2B001, according to a statement from the drug’s manufacturer.

The trial data “support our view that P2B001 can provide clinical benefits comparable to higher doses of commercially available dopamine agonists, while mitigating the side effects typically associated with this class of medicine such as somnolence, orthostatic hypotension, and hallucinations,” Sheila Oren, MD, chief executive officer of Pharma Two B, said in a statement.

“This is important for PD patients of all ages and is critical for the elderly, who typically do not tolerate side effects of dopamine agonists,” Dr. Oren added.
 

Promising results

The 12-week, international, randomized, double-blind trial was designed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of P2B001 compared to its individual components and to a calibration arm of pramipexole ER in 544 patients with early PD.

Participants received P2B001, a once-daily ER combination product composed of pramipexole 0.6 mg and rasagiline 0.75 mg; pramipexole ER capsule 0.6 mg once daily; rasagiline ER capsule 0.75 mg once daily; or the currently marketed product pramipexole ER capsules titrated to an optimal dose for each individual patient (1.5-4.5 mg).

The adjusted mean change from baseline in total Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score was –2.66 points for P2B001 versus pramipexole (P = .0018) and –3.30 points for P2B001 versus rasagiline (P = .0001). There was no significant difference in UPDRS scores between P2B001 and pramipexole ER.

The adjusted mean change from baseline in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score for P2B001 versus pramipexole ER was –2.66 points (P < .0001).

Treatment-related adverse events were mostly mild or moderate and were similar among groups.

“The initiation of treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease represents an area of unmet need due to the side effects associated with current treatments,” Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in a statement from the manufacturer.

“Based on the data from this well-designed, rigorous, active-controlled study, P2B001 has the potential to become a leading treatment option for PD, particularly as first line therapy for early-stage patients of all ages,” Dr. Olanow added.

The company plans to file a new drug application in 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Topline results from a phase 3 trial of P2B001, a fixed-dose combination of extended release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline, showed it was superior to its individual components as a first-line treatment for early Parkinson’s disease.

Study participants also reported less daytime sleepiness with P2B001, according to a statement from the drug’s manufacturer.

The trial data “support our view that P2B001 can provide clinical benefits comparable to higher doses of commercially available dopamine agonists, while mitigating the side effects typically associated with this class of medicine such as somnolence, orthostatic hypotension, and hallucinations,” Sheila Oren, MD, chief executive officer of Pharma Two B, said in a statement.

“This is important for PD patients of all ages and is critical for the elderly, who typically do not tolerate side effects of dopamine agonists,” Dr. Oren added.
 

Promising results

The 12-week, international, randomized, double-blind trial was designed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of P2B001 compared to its individual components and to a calibration arm of pramipexole ER in 544 patients with early PD.

Participants received P2B001, a once-daily ER combination product composed of pramipexole 0.6 mg and rasagiline 0.75 mg; pramipexole ER capsule 0.6 mg once daily; rasagiline ER capsule 0.75 mg once daily; or the currently marketed product pramipexole ER capsules titrated to an optimal dose for each individual patient (1.5-4.5 mg).

The adjusted mean change from baseline in total Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score was –2.66 points for P2B001 versus pramipexole (P = .0018) and –3.30 points for P2B001 versus rasagiline (P = .0001). There was no significant difference in UPDRS scores between P2B001 and pramipexole ER.

The adjusted mean change from baseline in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score for P2B001 versus pramipexole ER was –2.66 points (P < .0001).

Treatment-related adverse events were mostly mild or moderate and were similar among groups.

“The initiation of treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease represents an area of unmet need due to the side effects associated with current treatments,” Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in a statement from the manufacturer.

“Based on the data from this well-designed, rigorous, active-controlled study, P2B001 has the potential to become a leading treatment option for PD, particularly as first line therapy for early-stage patients of all ages,” Dr. Olanow added.

The company plans to file a new drug application in 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Topline results from a phase 3 trial of P2B001, a fixed-dose combination of extended release (ER) formulations of pramipexole and rasagiline, showed it was superior to its individual components as a first-line treatment for early Parkinson’s disease.

Study participants also reported less daytime sleepiness with P2B001, according to a statement from the drug’s manufacturer.

The trial data “support our view that P2B001 can provide clinical benefits comparable to higher doses of commercially available dopamine agonists, while mitigating the side effects typically associated with this class of medicine such as somnolence, orthostatic hypotension, and hallucinations,” Sheila Oren, MD, chief executive officer of Pharma Two B, said in a statement.

“This is important for PD patients of all ages and is critical for the elderly, who typically do not tolerate side effects of dopamine agonists,” Dr. Oren added.
 

Promising results

The 12-week, international, randomized, double-blind trial was designed to study the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of P2B001 compared to its individual components and to a calibration arm of pramipexole ER in 544 patients with early PD.

Participants received P2B001, a once-daily ER combination product composed of pramipexole 0.6 mg and rasagiline 0.75 mg; pramipexole ER capsule 0.6 mg once daily; rasagiline ER capsule 0.75 mg once daily; or the currently marketed product pramipexole ER capsules titrated to an optimal dose for each individual patient (1.5-4.5 mg).

The adjusted mean change from baseline in total Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) score was –2.66 points for P2B001 versus pramipexole (P = .0018) and –3.30 points for P2B001 versus rasagiline (P = .0001). There was no significant difference in UPDRS scores between P2B001 and pramipexole ER.

The adjusted mean change from baseline in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score for P2B001 versus pramipexole ER was –2.66 points (P < .0001).

Treatment-related adverse events were mostly mild or moderate and were similar among groups.

“The initiation of treatment of patients with Parkinson’s disease represents an area of unmet need due to the side effects associated with current treatments,” Warren Olanow, MD, professor emeritus of neurology and neuroscience at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, said in a statement from the manufacturer.

“Based on the data from this well-designed, rigorous, active-controlled study, P2B001 has the potential to become a leading treatment option for PD, particularly as first line therapy for early-stage patients of all ages,” Dr. Olanow added.

The company plans to file a new drug application in 2022.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Childhood autism rates are at the highest level since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began tracking the disorder in 2000, new data released Dec. 2 show.

The increase likely reflects improvements in diagnosis and identification of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), not an increase in incidence, study authors with the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network told this news organization.

Using a new surveillance methodology, researchers found that 2.3% of 8-year-olds in communities in 11 states across the United States had an autism diagnosis in 2018, up from 1.9% in 2016.

A separate report on early identification in 4-year-olds shows that children born in 2014 were 50% more likely to receive an autism diagnosis or ASD special education classification by 48 months of age than those born in 2010, signaling improved early diagnosis.

Taken together, the data suggest efforts to raise awareness about autism are working, though researchers were quick to say much work remains.

“It was not surprising to me and in fact it was reassuring that the number of children diagnosed with autism is higher and is actually approaching prevalence of autism that has been noted in some national surveys of parents,” Stuart Shapira, MD, PhD, associate director for science in CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability, told this news organization.

“It means we’re doing a better job of identifying children, which helps to get them into services earlier so they can achieve their best developmental outcome.”

The studies, published online in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, are the first to use a new ASD surveillance protocol that relies on ASD diagnosis or special education classification and billing codes and eliminates comprehensive records analysis by trained clinician reviewers.

Racial disparities

The updated methodology was less labor intensive and reduced the time it took to produce the report, but it is not without its critics, who claim the new protocol will undercount the number of children with ASD.

Created in 2000 and funded by the CDC, the ADDM Network is the only surveillance program in the United States that tracks the number and characteristics of children with ASD in multiple communities in the U.S.

When ADDM released its first report in 2007 from six states and based on data from the year 2000, ASD prevalence was 6.7 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 150 children.

In the latest report, which includes data from 2018, the autism prevalence rate across 11 states was 23.0 per 1,000 children, or 1 in 44 children.

That rate is closer to reported autism prevalence from the National Survey of Children’s Health and the National Health Interview Survey, both of which rely on parent-reported ASD diagnoses.

For the report, researchers analyzed medical and special education records of 220,281 children who were born in 2010 in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Children were counted as having autism if their records included an ASD diagnosis, a special education classification of ASD, or an ASD International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code. A total of 5,058 children met those criteria.

Rates of ASD ranged from a low of 1.7% in Missouri to 3.9% in California and were 4.2 times higher in boys than in girls. Just under half of the children with ASD were evaluated by age 36 months.

Although the overall ASD prevalence was similar among White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander children, the report highlighted a number of other racial disparities overall and in individual states.

For example, among those with ASD and data on cognitive ability, 35.2% had an intelligence quotient score of 70 or lower. Black children with ASD were far more likely to have an IQ of 70 or less (49.8%) than Hispanic (33.1%) or White (29.7%) children.

“The persistent disparities in co-occurring intellectual disabilities in children with autism is something that we continue to see and suggests that we need to better understand exactly what’s happening,” Matthew Maenner, PhD, an epidemiologist and autism surveillance team lead with the CDC’s National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, told this news organization.

Another long-standing trend observed again in the new report on prevalence among 8-year-olds is low ASD prevalence among Hispanic children. While the overall estimate showed similar autism rates, a closer review of state-level data reveals a different picture.

“In almost half of the sites, Hispanic children were less likely to be identified as having ASD,” he said. “This gets lost if you look only at the overall estimate.”

New methodology

When ADDM released its first report in 2007, autism diagnosis was widely inadequate in the United States. Relying on only confirmed ASD diagnoses would significantly underestimate the number of children with the disorder, so the CDC added “active case finding” to the protocol.

Trained clinician reviewers analyzed individual notes from medical and educational records for every 8-year-old in ADDM Network sites, looking for evidence of characteristics and behaviors associated with autism. The process was labor- and time-intensive and took up to 4 years to complete.

In 2018, the CDC began investigating ways to speed the process and came up with the strategy used in the latest report. The new protocol was faster, easier, and less expensive. Although he says cost was never the deciding factor, Dr. Maenner acknowledges that had they stuck with the original protocol, they would have been forced to reduce the number of ADDM Network sites.

Dr. Maenner argues that a comparison of the two protocols shows the new method doesn’t compromise accuracy and may actually capture children who lacked the medical or educational records the previous protocol required for a count. But not everyone agrees.

“I thought the point was to be as accurate and complete as possible in doing the surveillance,” Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., and principal investigator of the New Jersey ADDM Network site, told this news organization. “In states where there’s a high detail of information in records, like New Jersey, it’s going to underestimate the count.”

Dr. Zahorodny says the latest data prove his point. In 2016, under the old methodology, ASD prevalence was 3.1% in the state. In 2018, under the new protocol, prevalence was 2.84%, a decrease of about 20% that Dr. Zahorodny pins squarely on the elimination of ADDM clinical reviewers.

But New Jersey is the only state that participated in both the 2016 and 2018 surveillance periods to report a decrease in ASD prevalence. The other eight states all found autism rates in their states went up.

Sydney Pettygrove, PhD, associate professor of public health and pediatrics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, and a principal investigator for the ADDM site in Arizona, told this news organization that when she first learned the CDC was rolling out a new methodology, she and other investigators were concerned.

“People were really upset. I was really upset,” she said. “I had formed an opinion based on the earlier data that this would not be a good idea.”

In 2000, when ASD surveillance began in Arizona, nearly 30% of children identified by ADDM clinical reviewers as having autism had no mention of the disorder in their records. Today, that percentage is closer to 5%.

“In 2000 it would have been catastrophic to try to estimate the prevalence of autism with the new protocol,” said Dr. Pettygrove. As it turns out, under the new protocol, prevalence rates in Arizona increased from 16.0 per 1,000 children in 2016 to 24.9 in 2018.

Built-in bias eliminated?

In addition to speeding up the process, the new methodology might have other benefits as well. Under the old ADDM surveillance protocol, children who lacked certain medical or educational records did not meet the ASD case definition and weren’t counted.

A 2019 study showed that this disproportionately affected Black and Hispanic children, who had significantly less access to health care professionals than White children.

As a result, “the old methodology had a bias built into it,” Maureen Durkin, PhD, DrPH, coauthor of that study and chair of population health sciences at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and principal investigator for the ADDM site in Wisconsin, told this news organization.

“Clinician reviewers ended up putting these children in the ‘suspected ASD’ category because they couldn’t call it a case under the case definition,” Dr. Durkin said. “There was a fairly large percentage of suspected cases and a disproportionate number of those kids were children of color.”

Although she can’t say for sure, Dr. Durkin said it’s possible the new protocol could eliminate some of that bias.

CDC researchers also attribute the new method to an expanded study of early diagnosis among 4-year-olds. In previous years, only a handful of the ADDM Network sites participating in the 8-year-old surveillance project also studied early diagnosis in 4-year-olds.

This year, all 11 sites took part in the early diagnosis analysis, tripling the number of children included in the analysis. That made it possible to include, for the first time, Asian/Pacific Islander children in this analysis.

In the past, ASD prevalence has trended higher in White children, compared with other racial groups. The new data found that ASD prevalence among 4-year-olds was significantly lower in White children (12.9 per 1,000 children) than in Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children (16.6, 21.1, and 22.7 per 1,000, respectively). Prevalence in American Indian/Alaska Native children was the lowest among all racial groups (11.5 per 1,000).

It’s the first time researchers have seen this pattern in any ADDM report, Kelly Shaw, PhD, lead author of that study and an epidemiologist with the National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disability at the CDC, told this news organization.

These data don’t provide clues about the potential cause of that disparity, Dr. Shaw said. It’s likely an indication of better identification of ASD in those communities, she said, and not a sign of increased incidence of autism among Black, Hispanic, or Asian/Pacific Islander children.

“We don’t have any evidence to suggest or expect that autism would be increasing differentially among groups,” Dr. Shaw said.

The data suggest “we are making some progress but there certainly is still room for improvement,” Dr. Shaw said.

Study authors report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Schizophrenia and severe mood and anxiety disorders are associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 but are tied to a two- to fourfold increased risk of death from the virus, new research shows.

The study results held after the researchers controlled for other risk factors, and they contradict an earlier study that showed no increased mortality risk associated with mood or anxiety disorders. The findings come as the overall number of deaths in the United States approaches 800,000.

“These patients were less likely to be infected because they were probably less exposed, but once they have the infection, they are more prone to worse outcomes,” lead author Antonio L. Teixeira, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry with McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Nov. 23 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Unexpected finding

Researchers analyzed electronic health records for 2.5 million adults with private health insurance who were tested for COVID-19 in 2020.

The overall positivity rate for the entire cohort was 11.91%, and patients with severe psychiatric illness fell below that rate. Positivity rates were 9.86% for people with schizophrenia or mood disorders and 11.17% among those with anxiety disorder.

Despite their lower positivity rate, patients with schizophrenia had the highest odds of death from COVID-19 after adjustment for age, race, body mass index, and comorbidities (aOR, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-5.24).

Those results were not very surprising, Dr. Teixeira said, as earlier studies have reported similar findings. However, the data on individuals with mood and anxiety disorders were unexpected.

Patients with mood disorders were nearly three times as likely to die (aOR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.00-3.81), and those with anxiety disorders had more than double the mortality risk (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.68-3.27).

“We were expecting some increase, but there was strong evidence in those populations as well,” he said. “We were especially surprised at the data on patients with anxiety disorders.”
 

An outstanding question

These findings contradict a study published Jan. 27, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry, that showed no significant increase in mortality risk among those with mood or anxiety disorders.

Study methodology and timing might explain some of the differences, Katlyn Nemani, MD, a research assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University, who led that earlier study, said in an interview.

Dr. Nemani’s study had a smaller study sample, examined mortality over a 30-day period after a positive COVID-19 test, and was limited to the peak of the pandemic in New York, between March and May 2020. Dr. Teixeira’s team examined a full year of data and assessed mortality for 7 days following a positive test.

“It is possible patients with some psychiatric disorders were less likely to receive or successfully respond to treatment for severe COVD-19 which evolved during the course of the pandemic,” Dr. Nemani said, adding that it’s also possible that differences in mortality in the days following infection became attenuated over time.

While a meta-analysis published in July and reported by this news organization at that time did show higher COVID-19 mortality among patients with mood disorders, the risk was far lower than that reported in this new study. That report, which included 33 studies in 22 countries, also found no increase in risk among those with anxiety disorder.

In October, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added mood disorders to the list of medical conditions that increase the risk for more severe COVID-19. Schizophrenia was already on that list.

“The outstanding question is what underlies this increased risk,” Dr. Nemani said. “Future studies focused on immune-mediated mechanisms and other potential explanations will help guide targeted interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Teixeira and Dr. Nemani report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Schizophrenia and severe mood and anxiety disorders are associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 but are tied to a two- to fourfold increased risk of death from the virus, new research shows.

The study results held after the researchers controlled for other risk factors, and they contradict an earlier study that showed no increased mortality risk associated with mood or anxiety disorders. The findings come as the overall number of deaths in the United States approaches 800,000.

“These patients were less likely to be infected because they were probably less exposed, but once they have the infection, they are more prone to worse outcomes,” lead author Antonio L. Teixeira, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry with McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Nov. 23 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Unexpected finding

Researchers analyzed electronic health records for 2.5 million adults with private health insurance who were tested for COVID-19 in 2020.

The overall positivity rate for the entire cohort was 11.91%, and patients with severe psychiatric illness fell below that rate. Positivity rates were 9.86% for people with schizophrenia or mood disorders and 11.17% among those with anxiety disorder.

Despite their lower positivity rate, patients with schizophrenia had the highest odds of death from COVID-19 after adjustment for age, race, body mass index, and comorbidities (aOR, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-5.24).

Those results were not very surprising, Dr. Teixeira said, as earlier studies have reported similar findings. However, the data on individuals with mood and anxiety disorders were unexpected.

Patients with mood disorders were nearly three times as likely to die (aOR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.00-3.81), and those with anxiety disorders had more than double the mortality risk (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.68-3.27).

“We were expecting some increase, but there was strong evidence in those populations as well,” he said. “We were especially surprised at the data on patients with anxiety disorders.”
 

An outstanding question

These findings contradict a study published Jan. 27, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry, that showed no significant increase in mortality risk among those with mood or anxiety disorders.

Study methodology and timing might explain some of the differences, Katlyn Nemani, MD, a research assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University, who led that earlier study, said in an interview.

Dr. Nemani’s study had a smaller study sample, examined mortality over a 30-day period after a positive COVID-19 test, and was limited to the peak of the pandemic in New York, between March and May 2020. Dr. Teixeira’s team examined a full year of data and assessed mortality for 7 days following a positive test.

“It is possible patients with some psychiatric disorders were less likely to receive or successfully respond to treatment for severe COVD-19 which evolved during the course of the pandemic,” Dr. Nemani said, adding that it’s also possible that differences in mortality in the days following infection became attenuated over time.

While a meta-analysis published in July and reported by this news organization at that time did show higher COVID-19 mortality among patients with mood disorders, the risk was far lower than that reported in this new study. That report, which included 33 studies in 22 countries, also found no increase in risk among those with anxiety disorder.

In October, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added mood disorders to the list of medical conditions that increase the risk for more severe COVID-19. Schizophrenia was already on that list.

“The outstanding question is what underlies this increased risk,” Dr. Nemani said. “Future studies focused on immune-mediated mechanisms and other potential explanations will help guide targeted interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Teixeira and Dr. Nemani report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Schizophrenia and severe mood and anxiety disorders are associated with a significantly lower risk of COVID-19 but are tied to a two- to fourfold increased risk of death from the virus, new research shows.

The study results held after the researchers controlled for other risk factors, and they contradict an earlier study that showed no increased mortality risk associated with mood or anxiety disorders. The findings come as the overall number of deaths in the United States approaches 800,000.

“These patients were less likely to be infected because they were probably less exposed, but once they have the infection, they are more prone to worse outcomes,” lead author Antonio L. Teixeira, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry with McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said in an interview.

The study was published online Nov. 23 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Unexpected finding

Researchers analyzed electronic health records for 2.5 million adults with private health insurance who were tested for COVID-19 in 2020.

The overall positivity rate for the entire cohort was 11.91%, and patients with severe psychiatric illness fell below that rate. Positivity rates were 9.86% for people with schizophrenia or mood disorders and 11.17% among those with anxiety disorder.

Despite their lower positivity rate, patients with schizophrenia had the highest odds of death from COVID-19 after adjustment for age, race, body mass index, and comorbidities (aOR, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-5.24).

Those results were not very surprising, Dr. Teixeira said, as earlier studies have reported similar findings. However, the data on individuals with mood and anxiety disorders were unexpected.

Patients with mood disorders were nearly three times as likely to die (aOR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.00-3.81), and those with anxiety disorders had more than double the mortality risk (aOR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.68-3.27).

“We were expecting some increase, but there was strong evidence in those populations as well,” he said. “We were especially surprised at the data on patients with anxiety disorders.”
 

An outstanding question

These findings contradict a study published Jan. 27, 2021, in JAMA Psychiatry, that showed no significant increase in mortality risk among those with mood or anxiety disorders.

Study methodology and timing might explain some of the differences, Katlyn Nemani, MD, a research assistant professor of psychiatry at New York University, who led that earlier study, said in an interview.

Dr. Nemani’s study had a smaller study sample, examined mortality over a 30-day period after a positive COVID-19 test, and was limited to the peak of the pandemic in New York, between March and May 2020. Dr. Teixeira’s team examined a full year of data and assessed mortality for 7 days following a positive test.

“It is possible patients with some psychiatric disorders were less likely to receive or successfully respond to treatment for severe COVD-19 which evolved during the course of the pandemic,” Dr. Nemani said, adding that it’s also possible that differences in mortality in the days following infection became attenuated over time.

While a meta-analysis published in July and reported by this news organization at that time did show higher COVID-19 mortality among patients with mood disorders, the risk was far lower than that reported in this new study. That report, which included 33 studies in 22 countries, also found no increase in risk among those with anxiety disorder.

In October, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention added mood disorders to the list of medical conditions that increase the risk for more severe COVID-19. Schizophrenia was already on that list.

“The outstanding question is what underlies this increased risk,” Dr. Nemani said. “Future studies focused on immune-mediated mechanisms and other potential explanations will help guide targeted interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality in this vulnerable population.”

Funding for the study was not disclosed. Dr. Teixeira and Dr. Nemani report no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) participating in the largest clinical trial of intranasal oxytocin to date came in for follow-up visits with investigators, they reported marked improvement in the children’s social functioning.

Kids who rarely communicated with their families began to interact more. Those who usually preferred to isolate themselves started joining their parents for meals. It all seemed so promising – until the data came in.

“Those sounded like real improvements to me, and it seemed like they increased over the period of the study,” lead investigator Linmarie Sikich, MD, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry with Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “Turns out it wasn’t oxytocin that was making that difference.”

Researchers found that after 24 weeks of daily treatment with intranasal oxytocin, there were no significant differences in social functioning between children who received active treatment and those in the placebo group.

The much-anticipated results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. To say that they are disappointing, Dr. Sikich said, is an understatement.
 

Increase in off-label use

Most studies in mouse models of ASD and small trials in children produced conflicting results, although there were modest improvements in social functioning associated with the use of intranasal oxytocin. Some clinicians were already prescribing it off label.

On the basis of this research and early feedback from parents of children, Dr. Sikich and colleagues were hopeful.

However, results from a rigorous, 5-year, $11.4 million randomized trial were negative. Yet, parents were convinced their child improved during the study, and there was a significant increase in off-label prescribing of a treatment her research says doesn’t work. What’s next for oxytocin?

Known as the “love hormone,” oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is primarily synthesized in the hypothalamus. It plays a role in childbirth and lactation and is also involved in the regulation of social functioning and emotions. Research suggests low oxytocin levels are associated with diminished social functioning, regardless of ASD status.

Its potential as an autism therapy for children has been under study for a decade. Some findings link its use to improvements in core deficits associated with ASD, including repetitive behaviors, fixated or restricted interest, and social communication. A study published in 2020 showed that the treatment improved symptoms in high-functioning adults with ASD.

These were mostly small studies and were underpowered to reliably detect an effect of the therapy on social functioning. They often involved only a single dose of oxytocin. Some studies showed improvements, but others did not.

Still, interest in the treatment grew. Physicians began prescribing it for children with ASD, and parents began buying products containing oxytocin on the internet. Researchers feared this off-label use was becoming widespread, despite inconclusive evidence of efficacy.
 

High hopes

With support from a National Institutes of Health grant, Dr. Sikich and her team designed a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether the use of oxytocin in children with ASD works and is safe.

The challenges began before they even enrolled a single child. A number of behavioral assessment tools are used to measure social function in ASD, but there is no consensus on which one is best.

A simple blood test could determine how much oxytocin from the nasal spray was absorbed in the blood, but identifying how much made it to the brain would require fMRI, which is expensive and is challenging to use in this study population. Then there was the acquisition of the drug itself.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intravenous oxytocin for inducing labor. Intranasal oxytocin is not approved for any indication and isn’t available commercially in the United States. Patients or researchers must secure the drug from a manufacturer in a country where it is approved or order it from a U.S. pharmacy that is capable of compounding IV oxytocin into an intranasal formulation.

The pharmacy in Switzerland Dr. Sikich planned to use couldn’t make enough for the study. Contracting with a compounding pharmacy in the United States was significantly more expensive and time consuming, but it was the researchers’ only option.

“If it hadn’t been something we expected to have a major benefit, I think we would have given up the project at multiple points along the line due to all of these challenges,” said Dr. Sikich.

In August 2014, with all the pieces finally in place, researchers began enrolling children aged 3-17 years. The final cohort included 290 participants with ASD, 146 in the oxytocin group and 144 in the placebo group. Of these, 48% had minimal verbal fluency, and 52% had fluent verbal speech.

Participants received daily synthetic oxytocin or placebo via a nasal spray for 24 weeks. The daily oxytocin dose was 48 IU for the first 7 weeks. After that, the dosage could be titrated to a maximum of 80 IU/d. The mean maximal total daily dose of oxytocin throughout the study was 67.6 ± 16.9 IU.
 

‘It just didn’t work’

Both study groups showed improvement in social withdrawal beginning at 4 weeks and continuing throughout the trial, as determined on the basis of caretakers’ responses on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist Modified Social Withdrawal Subscale, the study’s primary outcome measure.

Sociability and social motivation also improved in both groups, as measured by the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Behavior Inventory and the Social Responsiveness Scale.

But by the end of the trial, the difference between the groups in improvement of social function wasn’t significant (difference, -0.2 points; P = .61) after adjusting for age, verbal fluency, and baseline oxytocin level.

“We were so convinced that it would work,” Dr. Sikich said, “but it just didn’t.”

From observation, parents were also convinced the therapy was working. At the trial’s conclusion, fewer than half of caregivers correctly guessed whether their child was in the treatment group or the placebo group.

A lot of development changes can happen in a child over 6 months. It’s possible the improvements would have occurred regardless of the trial, Dr. Sikich said. Parents’ perceptions could also be a placebo effect. Their child was in a clinical trial of a drug they believed could improve social functioning, so in their mind, it did.

Caregivers received training in how to identify certain behavioral changes, which may have helped them spot an existing positive change they had previously overlooked. Or they may have worked with their child more intently as a result of their participation in the trial.

“People may start doing more things or doing them more intensively or purposefully, consciously or subconsciously, to try to help their child improve the skills or behaviors targeted by the active therapy in the study,” Dr. Sikich said. “These are things that might really help the child move forward which are completely separate from the medication being studied.”

The safety analysis offered more hopeful results. Only one serious adverse event from the treatment was reported: A 17-year-old participant taking a daily dose of 48 IU experienced a sedating effect while driving and had an accident.
 

Too soon to walk away?

Perhaps the most important take-away from the study is that even if it’s safe, intranasal oxytocin as it is currently used doesn’t work and clinicians shouldn’t prescribe it, said Daniel Geschwind, MD, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Center for Autism Research, who penned a commentary on the study and discussed the findings with this news organization.

“This study shows that using oxytocin the way it’s used in the community right now is not helping anybody, so why put a child through that?” added Dr. Geschwind, who also is a professor of genetics, neurology, and psychiatry at UCLA.

The trial highlights areas that need to be addressed in order to improve research in the field, he said. Establishing a consensus process to measure social functioning and figuring out a better way to access intranasal oxytocin would lead to studies that are more conclusive, comparable, and less expensive. Dr. Sikich agrees.

Despite the findings, Dr. Geschwind and other autism researchers say it’s too soon to walk away from oxytocin altogether, although it may be time to change the approach to autism research.

“We have to take a page from the playbook of modern medicine in other areas and begin to recognize that these syndromes are incredibly heterogeneous,” Dr. Geschwind says. “We can surmise, although we don’t know, that there might be different biological forms of autism that have different pathways involved that are going to respond differently to different medications.”

Calling the researchers’ efforts “heroic,” Karen Parker, PhD, an associate professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, says efficacy trials such as this one are critical. However, Dr. Parker said in an interview, there are a number of questions that the study didn’t address.

The majority of medication dispensed in a standard intranasal device is sprayed into the back of the throat. Regular blood tests confirmed that oxytocin was getting into participants’ system, but, given how quickly oxytocin degrades in the blood, Dr. Parker said it’s hard to know just how much reached the brain.

It’s also unclear whether the results would have been different had the treatment been paired with behavioral therapy, an approach Dr. Parker suggests might benefit a subset of children with ASD.

A 2017 study from Dr. Parker’s lab found that children with ASD whose use of oxytocin at baseline was low derived greater benefit from synthetic oxytocin, something the new study failed to find. Still, Dr. Parker said, it’s possible oxytocin might increase social motivation and increase a child’s receptiveness to behavioral therapy.

“When you see a negative trial like this, it decreases enthusiasm for the therapy for autism in this context,” Dr. Parker said. “I hope people who are studying these syndromes will continue to explore oxytocin as a therapy.”

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the Autism Centers of Excellence Program and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. Full disclosures of the authors’ possible conflicts of interest are available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) participating in the largest clinical trial of intranasal oxytocin to date came in for follow-up visits with investigators, they reported marked improvement in the children’s social functioning.

Kids who rarely communicated with their families began to interact more. Those who usually preferred to isolate themselves started joining their parents for meals. It all seemed so promising – until the data came in.

“Those sounded like real improvements to me, and it seemed like they increased over the period of the study,” lead investigator Linmarie Sikich, MD, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry with Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “Turns out it wasn’t oxytocin that was making that difference.”

Researchers found that after 24 weeks of daily treatment with intranasal oxytocin, there were no significant differences in social functioning between children who received active treatment and those in the placebo group.

The much-anticipated results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. To say that they are disappointing, Dr. Sikich said, is an understatement.
 

Increase in off-label use

Most studies in mouse models of ASD and small trials in children produced conflicting results, although there were modest improvements in social functioning associated with the use of intranasal oxytocin. Some clinicians were already prescribing it off label.

On the basis of this research and early feedback from parents of children, Dr. Sikich and colleagues were hopeful.

However, results from a rigorous, 5-year, $11.4 million randomized trial were negative. Yet, parents were convinced their child improved during the study, and there was a significant increase in off-label prescribing of a treatment her research says doesn’t work. What’s next for oxytocin?

Known as the “love hormone,” oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is primarily synthesized in the hypothalamus. It plays a role in childbirth and lactation and is also involved in the regulation of social functioning and emotions. Research suggests low oxytocin levels are associated with diminished social functioning, regardless of ASD status.

Its potential as an autism therapy for children has been under study for a decade. Some findings link its use to improvements in core deficits associated with ASD, including repetitive behaviors, fixated or restricted interest, and social communication. A study published in 2020 showed that the treatment improved symptoms in high-functioning adults with ASD.

These were mostly small studies and were underpowered to reliably detect an effect of the therapy on social functioning. They often involved only a single dose of oxytocin. Some studies showed improvements, but others did not.

Still, interest in the treatment grew. Physicians began prescribing it for children with ASD, and parents began buying products containing oxytocin on the internet. Researchers feared this off-label use was becoming widespread, despite inconclusive evidence of efficacy.
 

High hopes

With support from a National Institutes of Health grant, Dr. Sikich and her team designed a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether the use of oxytocin in children with ASD works and is safe.

The challenges began before they even enrolled a single child. A number of behavioral assessment tools are used to measure social function in ASD, but there is no consensus on which one is best.

A simple blood test could determine how much oxytocin from the nasal spray was absorbed in the blood, but identifying how much made it to the brain would require fMRI, which is expensive and is challenging to use in this study population. Then there was the acquisition of the drug itself.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intravenous oxytocin for inducing labor. Intranasal oxytocin is not approved for any indication and isn’t available commercially in the United States. Patients or researchers must secure the drug from a manufacturer in a country where it is approved or order it from a U.S. pharmacy that is capable of compounding IV oxytocin into an intranasal formulation.

The pharmacy in Switzerland Dr. Sikich planned to use couldn’t make enough for the study. Contracting with a compounding pharmacy in the United States was significantly more expensive and time consuming, but it was the researchers’ only option.

“If it hadn’t been something we expected to have a major benefit, I think we would have given up the project at multiple points along the line due to all of these challenges,” said Dr. Sikich.

In August 2014, with all the pieces finally in place, researchers began enrolling children aged 3-17 years. The final cohort included 290 participants with ASD, 146 in the oxytocin group and 144 in the placebo group. Of these, 48% had minimal verbal fluency, and 52% had fluent verbal speech.

Participants received daily synthetic oxytocin or placebo via a nasal spray for 24 weeks. The daily oxytocin dose was 48 IU for the first 7 weeks. After that, the dosage could be titrated to a maximum of 80 IU/d. The mean maximal total daily dose of oxytocin throughout the study was 67.6 ± 16.9 IU.
 

‘It just didn’t work’

Both study groups showed improvement in social withdrawal beginning at 4 weeks and continuing throughout the trial, as determined on the basis of caretakers’ responses on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist Modified Social Withdrawal Subscale, the study’s primary outcome measure.

Sociability and social motivation also improved in both groups, as measured by the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Behavior Inventory and the Social Responsiveness Scale.

But by the end of the trial, the difference between the groups in improvement of social function wasn’t significant (difference, -0.2 points; P = .61) after adjusting for age, verbal fluency, and baseline oxytocin level.

“We were so convinced that it would work,” Dr. Sikich said, “but it just didn’t.”

From observation, parents were also convinced the therapy was working. At the trial’s conclusion, fewer than half of caregivers correctly guessed whether their child was in the treatment group or the placebo group.

A lot of development changes can happen in a child over 6 months. It’s possible the improvements would have occurred regardless of the trial, Dr. Sikich said. Parents’ perceptions could also be a placebo effect. Their child was in a clinical trial of a drug they believed could improve social functioning, so in their mind, it did.

Caregivers received training in how to identify certain behavioral changes, which may have helped them spot an existing positive change they had previously overlooked. Or they may have worked with their child more intently as a result of their participation in the trial.

“People may start doing more things or doing them more intensively or purposefully, consciously or subconsciously, to try to help their child improve the skills or behaviors targeted by the active therapy in the study,” Dr. Sikich said. “These are things that might really help the child move forward which are completely separate from the medication being studied.”

The safety analysis offered more hopeful results. Only one serious adverse event from the treatment was reported: A 17-year-old participant taking a daily dose of 48 IU experienced a sedating effect while driving and had an accident.
 

Too soon to walk away?

Perhaps the most important take-away from the study is that even if it’s safe, intranasal oxytocin as it is currently used doesn’t work and clinicians shouldn’t prescribe it, said Daniel Geschwind, MD, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Center for Autism Research, who penned a commentary on the study and discussed the findings with this news organization.

“This study shows that using oxytocin the way it’s used in the community right now is not helping anybody, so why put a child through that?” added Dr. Geschwind, who also is a professor of genetics, neurology, and psychiatry at UCLA.

The trial highlights areas that need to be addressed in order to improve research in the field, he said. Establishing a consensus process to measure social functioning and figuring out a better way to access intranasal oxytocin would lead to studies that are more conclusive, comparable, and less expensive. Dr. Sikich agrees.

Despite the findings, Dr. Geschwind and other autism researchers say it’s too soon to walk away from oxytocin altogether, although it may be time to change the approach to autism research.

“We have to take a page from the playbook of modern medicine in other areas and begin to recognize that these syndromes are incredibly heterogeneous,” Dr. Geschwind says. “We can surmise, although we don’t know, that there might be different biological forms of autism that have different pathways involved that are going to respond differently to different medications.”

Calling the researchers’ efforts “heroic,” Karen Parker, PhD, an associate professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, says efficacy trials such as this one are critical. However, Dr. Parker said in an interview, there are a number of questions that the study didn’t address.

The majority of medication dispensed in a standard intranasal device is sprayed into the back of the throat. Regular blood tests confirmed that oxytocin was getting into participants’ system, but, given how quickly oxytocin degrades in the blood, Dr. Parker said it’s hard to know just how much reached the brain.

It’s also unclear whether the results would have been different had the treatment been paired with behavioral therapy, an approach Dr. Parker suggests might benefit a subset of children with ASD.

A 2017 study from Dr. Parker’s lab found that children with ASD whose use of oxytocin at baseline was low derived greater benefit from synthetic oxytocin, something the new study failed to find. Still, Dr. Parker said, it’s possible oxytocin might increase social motivation and increase a child’s receptiveness to behavioral therapy.

“When you see a negative trial like this, it decreases enthusiasm for the therapy for autism in this context,” Dr. Parker said. “I hope people who are studying these syndromes will continue to explore oxytocin as a therapy.”

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the Autism Centers of Excellence Program and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. Full disclosures of the authors’ possible conflicts of interest are available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

When parents of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) participating in the largest clinical trial of intranasal oxytocin to date came in for follow-up visits with investigators, they reported marked improvement in the children’s social functioning.

Kids who rarely communicated with their families began to interact more. Those who usually preferred to isolate themselves started joining their parents for meals. It all seemed so promising – until the data came in.

“Those sounded like real improvements to me, and it seemed like they increased over the period of the study,” lead investigator Linmarie Sikich, MD, an associate clinical professor of psychiatry with Duke University School of Medicine and the Duke Center for Autism and Brain Development, Durham, N.C., told this news organization. “Turns out it wasn’t oxytocin that was making that difference.”

Researchers found that after 24 weeks of daily treatment with intranasal oxytocin, there were no significant differences in social functioning between children who received active treatment and those in the placebo group.

The much-anticipated results were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine. To say that they are disappointing, Dr. Sikich said, is an understatement.
 

Increase in off-label use

Most studies in mouse models of ASD and small trials in children produced conflicting results, although there were modest improvements in social functioning associated with the use of intranasal oxytocin. Some clinicians were already prescribing it off label.

On the basis of this research and early feedback from parents of children, Dr. Sikich and colleagues were hopeful.

However, results from a rigorous, 5-year, $11.4 million randomized trial were negative. Yet, parents were convinced their child improved during the study, and there was a significant increase in off-label prescribing of a treatment her research says doesn’t work. What’s next for oxytocin?

Known as the “love hormone,” oxytocin is a neurotransmitter that is primarily synthesized in the hypothalamus. It plays a role in childbirth and lactation and is also involved in the regulation of social functioning and emotions. Research suggests low oxytocin levels are associated with diminished social functioning, regardless of ASD status.

Its potential as an autism therapy for children has been under study for a decade. Some findings link its use to improvements in core deficits associated with ASD, including repetitive behaviors, fixated or restricted interest, and social communication. A study published in 2020 showed that the treatment improved symptoms in high-functioning adults with ASD.

These were mostly small studies and were underpowered to reliably detect an effect of the therapy on social functioning. They often involved only a single dose of oxytocin. Some studies showed improvements, but others did not.

Still, interest in the treatment grew. Physicians began prescribing it for children with ASD, and parents began buying products containing oxytocin on the internet. Researchers feared this off-label use was becoming widespread, despite inconclusive evidence of efficacy.
 

High hopes

With support from a National Institutes of Health grant, Dr. Sikich and her team designed a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to determine whether the use of oxytocin in children with ASD works and is safe.

The challenges began before they even enrolled a single child. A number of behavioral assessment tools are used to measure social function in ASD, but there is no consensus on which one is best.

A simple blood test could determine how much oxytocin from the nasal spray was absorbed in the blood, but identifying how much made it to the brain would require fMRI, which is expensive and is challenging to use in this study population. Then there was the acquisition of the drug itself.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved intravenous oxytocin for inducing labor. Intranasal oxytocin is not approved for any indication and isn’t available commercially in the United States. Patients or researchers must secure the drug from a manufacturer in a country where it is approved or order it from a U.S. pharmacy that is capable of compounding IV oxytocin into an intranasal formulation.

The pharmacy in Switzerland Dr. Sikich planned to use couldn’t make enough for the study. Contracting with a compounding pharmacy in the United States was significantly more expensive and time consuming, but it was the researchers’ only option.

“If it hadn’t been something we expected to have a major benefit, I think we would have given up the project at multiple points along the line due to all of these challenges,” said Dr. Sikich.

In August 2014, with all the pieces finally in place, researchers began enrolling children aged 3-17 years. The final cohort included 290 participants with ASD, 146 in the oxytocin group and 144 in the placebo group. Of these, 48% had minimal verbal fluency, and 52% had fluent verbal speech.

Participants received daily synthetic oxytocin or placebo via a nasal spray for 24 weeks. The daily oxytocin dose was 48 IU for the first 7 weeks. After that, the dosage could be titrated to a maximum of 80 IU/d. The mean maximal total daily dose of oxytocin throughout the study was 67.6 ± 16.9 IU.
 

‘It just didn’t work’

Both study groups showed improvement in social withdrawal beginning at 4 weeks and continuing throughout the trial, as determined on the basis of caretakers’ responses on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist Modified Social Withdrawal Subscale, the study’s primary outcome measure.

Sociability and social motivation also improved in both groups, as measured by the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Behavior Inventory and the Social Responsiveness Scale.

But by the end of the trial, the difference between the groups in improvement of social function wasn’t significant (difference, -0.2 points; P = .61) after adjusting for age, verbal fluency, and baseline oxytocin level.

“We were so convinced that it would work,” Dr. Sikich said, “but it just didn’t.”

From observation, parents were also convinced the therapy was working. At the trial’s conclusion, fewer than half of caregivers correctly guessed whether their child was in the treatment group or the placebo group.

A lot of development changes can happen in a child over 6 months. It’s possible the improvements would have occurred regardless of the trial, Dr. Sikich said. Parents’ perceptions could also be a placebo effect. Their child was in a clinical trial of a drug they believed could improve social functioning, so in their mind, it did.

Caregivers received training in how to identify certain behavioral changes, which may have helped them spot an existing positive change they had previously overlooked. Or they may have worked with their child more intently as a result of their participation in the trial.

“People may start doing more things or doing them more intensively or purposefully, consciously or subconsciously, to try to help their child improve the skills or behaviors targeted by the active therapy in the study,” Dr. Sikich said. “These are things that might really help the child move forward which are completely separate from the medication being studied.”

The safety analysis offered more hopeful results. Only one serious adverse event from the treatment was reported: A 17-year-old participant taking a daily dose of 48 IU experienced a sedating effect while driving and had an accident.
 

Too soon to walk away?

Perhaps the most important take-away from the study is that even if it’s safe, intranasal oxytocin as it is currently used doesn’t work and clinicians shouldn’t prescribe it, said Daniel Geschwind, MD, PhD, director of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Center for Autism Research, who penned a commentary on the study and discussed the findings with this news organization.

“This study shows that using oxytocin the way it’s used in the community right now is not helping anybody, so why put a child through that?” added Dr. Geschwind, who also is a professor of genetics, neurology, and psychiatry at UCLA.

The trial highlights areas that need to be addressed in order to improve research in the field, he said. Establishing a consensus process to measure social functioning and figuring out a better way to access intranasal oxytocin would lead to studies that are more conclusive, comparable, and less expensive. Dr. Sikich agrees.

Despite the findings, Dr. Geschwind and other autism researchers say it’s too soon to walk away from oxytocin altogether, although it may be time to change the approach to autism research.

“We have to take a page from the playbook of modern medicine in other areas and begin to recognize that these syndromes are incredibly heterogeneous,” Dr. Geschwind says. “We can surmise, although we don’t know, that there might be different biological forms of autism that have different pathways involved that are going to respond differently to different medications.”

Calling the researchers’ efforts “heroic,” Karen Parker, PhD, an associate professor and associate chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Stanford (Calif.) University, says efficacy trials such as this one are critical. However, Dr. Parker said in an interview, there are a number of questions that the study didn’t address.

The majority of medication dispensed in a standard intranasal device is sprayed into the back of the throat. Regular blood tests confirmed that oxytocin was getting into participants’ system, but, given how quickly oxytocin degrades in the blood, Dr. Parker said it’s hard to know just how much reached the brain.

It’s also unclear whether the results would have been different had the treatment been paired with behavioral therapy, an approach Dr. Parker suggests might benefit a subset of children with ASD.

A 2017 study from Dr. Parker’s lab found that children with ASD whose use of oxytocin at baseline was low derived greater benefit from synthetic oxytocin, something the new study failed to find. Still, Dr. Parker said, it’s possible oxytocin might increase social motivation and increase a child’s receptiveness to behavioral therapy.

“When you see a negative trial like this, it decreases enthusiasm for the therapy for autism in this context,” Dr. Parker said. “I hope people who are studying these syndromes will continue to explore oxytocin as a therapy.”

The study was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development through the Autism Centers of Excellence Program and the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University. Full disclosures of the authors’ possible conflicts of interest are available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Drinking coffee or tea is associated with reduced risk for stroke and dementia, with the biggest benefit associated with consuming both beverages, new research suggests.

amenic181/Getty Images

Investigators found that individuals who drank two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day had a 30% decrease in incidence of stroke and a 28% lower risk for dementia compared with those who did not.

“From a public health perspective, because regular tea and coffee drinkers comprise such a large proportion of the population and because these beverages tend to be consumed habitually throughout adult life, even small potential health benefits or risks associated with tea and coffee intake may have important public health implications,” the investigators wrote.

The study was published online Nov. 16 in PLOS Medicine.
 

Synergistic effect?

Whereas earlier studies have shown significant health benefits from moderate coffee and tea intake separately, few have examined the effect of drinking both.

Researchers enrolled 365,682 participants from the UK Biobank for the analysis of coffee and tea consumption and stroke and dementia risk and 13,352 participants for the analysis of poststroke dementia.

During a median follow-up of 11.4 years, 2.8% of participants experienced a stroke and 1.4% developed dementia.

After adjustment for confounders, stroke risk was 10% lower in those who drank a half-cup to a cup of coffee per day (P < .001) and 8% lower in those who had more than two cups a day (P = .009). Tea drinkers who had more than two cups a day saw a 16% reduction in stroke (P < .001).

Those who drank both coffee and tea during the day saw the greatest benefit. Drinking two to three cups of coffee and two to three cups of tea lowered stroke risk by 32% (P < .001) and dementia risk by 28% (P = .002).

Drinking both beverages offered significantly greater benefits than drinking just coffee or tea alone, with an 11% lower risk for stroke (P < .001), an 8% lower risk for dementia (P = .001), and 18% lower risk for vascular dementia (P = .001).

Among those participants who experienced a stroke during the follow-up period, drinking two to three cups of coffee was associated with 20% lower risk for poststroke dementia (P = .044), and for those who drank both coffee and tea (half to one cup of coffee and two to three cups of tea per day) the risk for poststroke dementia was lowered by 50% (P =.006).

There was no significant association between coffee and tea consumption and risk for hemorrhagic stroke or Alzheimer’s disease.

The study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High genetic risk for a range of psychiatric illnesses appears to influence individuals’ choice of urban or rural life, new research suggests.

Individuals with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or anorexia nervosa (AN) are significantly more likely to move from a rural to an urban setting, whereas those at high genetic risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were more likely to do the opposite.

The findings held even in those at high genetic risk who had never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, highlighting a genetic factor that previous research linking urban living to mental illness has not explored.

“It’s not as simple as saying that urban environment is responsible for schizophrenia and everyone should move out of urban environments and they will be safe,” study investigator Evangelos Vassos, MD, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and a consulting psychiatrist, said in an interview. “If you are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, you will still be predisposed to schizophrenia even if you move.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Genetic influence

The study results don’t rule out environmental influence, but offer evidence that the migration pattern researchers have tracked for years may have a multifactorial explanation.

“Our research shows that, at some level, an individual’s genes select their environment and that the relationship between environmental and genetic influences on mental health is interrelated,” Jessye Maxwell, MSc, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychiatry at King’s College, said in a statement. “This overlap needs to be considered when developing models to predict the risk of people developing mental health conditions in the future.”

For the study, the investigators calculated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of different psychiatric illnesses for 385,793 U.K. Biobank participants aged 37-73. PRS analyzes genetic information across a person’s entire genome, rather than by individual genes.

They used address history and U.K. census records from 1931 to 2011 to map population density over time.

PRS analyses showed significant associations with higher population density throughout adulthood, reaching highest significance between age 45 and 55 years for schizophrenia (88 people/km²; 95% confidence interval, 65-98 people/km²), BD (44 people/km²; 95%CI, 34-54 people/km²), AN (36 people/km²; 95%CI, 22-50 people/km²), and ASD (35 people/km²; 95%CI, 25-45 people/km²).

When they compared those who were born and stayed in rural or suburban areas to their counterparts who moved from those areas to cities, they found the odds of moving to urban areas ranged from 5% among people at high genetic risk for schizophrenia to 13% of those with a high risk for BD. Only people at high risk for ADHD were more likely to move to rural areas.

However, the study is not without its limitations. Only people of European descent were included, family medical history was unavailable for some participants, and only about 50,000 people had a lifetime diagnosis of mental illness, which is not representative of the general population.
 

‘Convincing evidence’

Still, the research adds another piece of the puzzle scientists seek to solve about where people live and mental illness risk, said Jordan DeVylder, PhD, associate professor of social work at Fordham University, New York, who commented on the study for this news organization.

Dr. DeVylder, who has also published research on the topic but was not part of the current study, noted that urban living has long been thought to be among the most consistent environmental risk factors for psychosis. However, he noted, “this association can also be explained by genetic selection, in which the same genes that predispose one to schizophrenia also predispose one to choose urban living.”

“This study presents the most convincing evidence to date that genetics have a major role in this association, at least in the countries where this association between urban living and psychosis exists,” he said.

The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The authors and Dr. DeVylder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High genetic risk for a range of psychiatric illnesses appears to influence individuals’ choice of urban or rural life, new research suggests.

Individuals with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or anorexia nervosa (AN) are significantly more likely to move from a rural to an urban setting, whereas those at high genetic risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were more likely to do the opposite.

The findings held even in those at high genetic risk who had never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, highlighting a genetic factor that previous research linking urban living to mental illness has not explored.

“It’s not as simple as saying that urban environment is responsible for schizophrenia and everyone should move out of urban environments and they will be safe,” study investigator Evangelos Vassos, MD, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and a consulting psychiatrist, said in an interview. “If you are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, you will still be predisposed to schizophrenia even if you move.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Genetic influence

The study results don’t rule out environmental influence, but offer evidence that the migration pattern researchers have tracked for years may have a multifactorial explanation.

“Our research shows that, at some level, an individual’s genes select their environment and that the relationship between environmental and genetic influences on mental health is interrelated,” Jessye Maxwell, MSc, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychiatry at King’s College, said in a statement. “This overlap needs to be considered when developing models to predict the risk of people developing mental health conditions in the future.”

For the study, the investigators calculated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of different psychiatric illnesses for 385,793 U.K. Biobank participants aged 37-73. PRS analyzes genetic information across a person’s entire genome, rather than by individual genes.

They used address history and U.K. census records from 1931 to 2011 to map population density over time.

PRS analyses showed significant associations with higher population density throughout adulthood, reaching highest significance between age 45 and 55 years for schizophrenia (88 people/km²; 95% confidence interval, 65-98 people/km²), BD (44 people/km²; 95%CI, 34-54 people/km²), AN (36 people/km²; 95%CI, 22-50 people/km²), and ASD (35 people/km²; 95%CI, 25-45 people/km²).

When they compared those who were born and stayed in rural or suburban areas to their counterparts who moved from those areas to cities, they found the odds of moving to urban areas ranged from 5% among people at high genetic risk for schizophrenia to 13% of those with a high risk for BD. Only people at high risk for ADHD were more likely to move to rural areas.

However, the study is not without its limitations. Only people of European descent were included, family medical history was unavailable for some participants, and only about 50,000 people had a lifetime diagnosis of mental illness, which is not representative of the general population.
 

‘Convincing evidence’

Still, the research adds another piece of the puzzle scientists seek to solve about where people live and mental illness risk, said Jordan DeVylder, PhD, associate professor of social work at Fordham University, New York, who commented on the study for this news organization.

Dr. DeVylder, who has also published research on the topic but was not part of the current study, noted that urban living has long been thought to be among the most consistent environmental risk factors for psychosis. However, he noted, “this association can also be explained by genetic selection, in which the same genes that predispose one to schizophrenia also predispose one to choose urban living.”

“This study presents the most convincing evidence to date that genetics have a major role in this association, at least in the countries where this association between urban living and psychosis exists,” he said.

The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The authors and Dr. DeVylder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

High genetic risk for a range of psychiatric illnesses appears to influence individuals’ choice of urban or rural life, new research suggests.

Individuals with a genetic predisposition to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or anorexia nervosa (AN) are significantly more likely to move from a rural to an urban setting, whereas those at high genetic risk for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder were more likely to do the opposite.

The findings held even in those at high genetic risk who had never been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, highlighting a genetic factor that previous research linking urban living to mental illness has not explored.

“It’s not as simple as saying that urban environment is responsible for schizophrenia and everyone should move out of urban environments and they will be safe,” study investigator Evangelos Vassos, MD, PhD, senior clinical research fellow at King’s College London, and a consulting psychiatrist, said in an interview. “If you are genetically predisposed to schizophrenia, you will still be predisposed to schizophrenia even if you move.”

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Genetic influence

The study results don’t rule out environmental influence, but offer evidence that the migration pattern researchers have tracked for years may have a multifactorial explanation.

“Our research shows that, at some level, an individual’s genes select their environment and that the relationship between environmental and genetic influences on mental health is interrelated,” Jessye Maxwell, MSc, lead author and a PhD candidate in psychiatry at King’s College, said in a statement. “This overlap needs to be considered when developing models to predict the risk of people developing mental health conditions in the future.”

For the study, the investigators calculated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of different psychiatric illnesses for 385,793 U.K. Biobank participants aged 37-73. PRS analyzes genetic information across a person’s entire genome, rather than by individual genes.

They used address history and U.K. census records from 1931 to 2011 to map population density over time.

PRS analyses showed significant associations with higher population density throughout adulthood, reaching highest significance between age 45 and 55 years for schizophrenia (88 people/km²; 95% confidence interval, 65-98 people/km²), BD (44 people/km²; 95%CI, 34-54 people/km²), AN (36 people/km²; 95%CI, 22-50 people/km²), and ASD (35 people/km²; 95%CI, 25-45 people/km²).

When they compared those who were born and stayed in rural or suburban areas to their counterparts who moved from those areas to cities, they found the odds of moving to urban areas ranged from 5% among people at high genetic risk for schizophrenia to 13% of those with a high risk for BD. Only people at high risk for ADHD were more likely to move to rural areas.

However, the study is not without its limitations. Only people of European descent were included, family medical history was unavailable for some participants, and only about 50,000 people had a lifetime diagnosis of mental illness, which is not representative of the general population.
 

‘Convincing evidence’

Still, the research adds another piece of the puzzle scientists seek to solve about where people live and mental illness risk, said Jordan DeVylder, PhD, associate professor of social work at Fordham University, New York, who commented on the study for this news organization.

Dr. DeVylder, who has also published research on the topic but was not part of the current study, noted that urban living has long been thought to be among the most consistent environmental risk factors for psychosis. However, he noted, “this association can also be explained by genetic selection, in which the same genes that predispose one to schizophrenia also predispose one to choose urban living.”

“This study presents the most convincing evidence to date that genetics have a major role in this association, at least in the countries where this association between urban living and psychosis exists,” he said.

The study was funded by National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The authors and Dr. DeVylder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The study, published online Oct. 20, 2021, in the journal Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, AD, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of AD, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid-beta, a hallmark sign of AD.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University.

Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta 42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR greater than 0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of AD pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both).

The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta ₄₂ ratio, apo E four-allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of AD could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The study, published online Oct. 20, 2021, in the journal Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, AD, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of AD, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid-beta, a hallmark sign of AD.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University.

Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta 42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR greater than 0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of AD pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both).

The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta ₄₂ ratio, apo E four-allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of AD could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

JGI/Tom Grill/Getty Images

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis, said in an interview.

The study, published online Oct. 20, 2021, in the journal Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, AD, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of AD, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid-beta, a hallmark sign of AD.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University.

Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta 42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR greater than 0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of AD pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both).

The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta ₄₂ ratio, apo E four-allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of AD could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in some New Jersey communities is triple the national average, a new analysis shows.

Investigators found that up to 10% of children in some of the state’s school districts have an ASD diagnosis vs. the national average of just under 2%.

School districts with higher ASD prevalence in the study have expansive health and educational programs in place to diagnose and support children with ASD, which likely contributed to the higher caseloads, senior investigator Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at New Jersey Medical School in Newark, said in an interview.

“When you have those players on the ground, it’s likely we’re going to be finding more, if not almost all, of the children with autism in a given district,” said Dr. Zahorodny, director of the New Jersey Autism Study for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was published online Oct. 21 in the journal Autism Research.
 

Local analysis

Researchers used the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network, a surveillance method developed by the CDC that includes data collected from health and special education records of children living in 11 communities across the United States. New Jersey is one of the ADDM participating sites.

National data are important, but Dr. Zahorodny and colleagues wanted to examine ASD prevalence at a more granular level, comparing prevalence district by district.

They examined data from 5,453 children who were 8 years old in 2016 and attended public school in Essex, Hudson, Ocean, and Union counties.

The prevalence of ASD was 36 children per 1,000 overall. Hudson County reported the lowest rate, at 31 cases per 1,000 children, and Ocean County reported the highest, at 54 cases per 1,000 children.

Across the region, ASD prevalence was four times higher in boys vs. girls, mirroring national statistics.

High ASD prevalence was more likely in mid-socioeconomic status districts (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.2; P = .01) and in larger school districts (PR, 1.3; P = .004).

Hispanic children had significantly lower ASD prevalence overall compared with White children (PR, 0.6; P < .001). In fact, prevalence was 30%-60% lower among Hispanic children in three of four counties compared with White children.

Another study is underway to better understand why autism rates were lower in specific districts and Hispanic children overall, but Dr. Zahorodny said one possibility is a lack of resources in those districts.
 

Will new methodology miss cases?

The study’s methodology was used by the CDC from 2000 to 2016 and includes assessment of children who have an ASD diagnosis, and children who haven’t received a diagnosis but have documented behaviors consistent with ASD.

In 2018, it was replaced with a less comprehensive approach that relies only on children with an ASD diagnosis. Data using this new methodology have not yet been reported.

In the new study from New Jersey, 767 children with autism were diagnosed by a pediatrician, neurologist, or other community provider. The remaining 175 children with autism, 18.6% of the total cohort, did not have an ASD diagnosis but met the ADDM case definition.

Under the new methodology, those children would not be counted.

“Something could be lost in the new methodology in terms of usefulness of the information because when the estimates are incomplete or low, that might lead people to make the wrong judgments when they make decisions about resources,” Dr. Zahorodny said.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The study authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in some New Jersey communities is triple the national average, a new analysis shows.

Investigators found that up to 10% of children in some of the state’s school districts have an ASD diagnosis vs. the national average of just under 2%.

School districts with higher ASD prevalence in the study have expansive health and educational programs in place to diagnose and support children with ASD, which likely contributed to the higher caseloads, senior investigator Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at New Jersey Medical School in Newark, said in an interview.

“When you have those players on the ground, it’s likely we’re going to be finding more, if not almost all, of the children with autism in a given district,” said Dr. Zahorodny, director of the New Jersey Autism Study for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was published online Oct. 21 in the journal Autism Research.
 

Local analysis

Researchers used the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network, a surveillance method developed by the CDC that includes data collected from health and special education records of children living in 11 communities across the United States. New Jersey is one of the ADDM participating sites.

National data are important, but Dr. Zahorodny and colleagues wanted to examine ASD prevalence at a more granular level, comparing prevalence district by district.

They examined data from 5,453 children who were 8 years old in 2016 and attended public school in Essex, Hudson, Ocean, and Union counties.

The prevalence of ASD was 36 children per 1,000 overall. Hudson County reported the lowest rate, at 31 cases per 1,000 children, and Ocean County reported the highest, at 54 cases per 1,000 children.

Across the region, ASD prevalence was four times higher in boys vs. girls, mirroring national statistics.

High ASD prevalence was more likely in mid-socioeconomic status districts (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.2; P = .01) and in larger school districts (PR, 1.3; P = .004).

Hispanic children had significantly lower ASD prevalence overall compared with White children (PR, 0.6; P < .001). In fact, prevalence was 30%-60% lower among Hispanic children in three of four counties compared with White children.

Another study is underway to better understand why autism rates were lower in specific districts and Hispanic children overall, but Dr. Zahorodny said one possibility is a lack of resources in those districts.
 

Will new methodology miss cases?

The study’s methodology was used by the CDC from 2000 to 2016 and includes assessment of children who have an ASD diagnosis, and children who haven’t received a diagnosis but have documented behaviors consistent with ASD.

In 2018, it was replaced with a less comprehensive approach that relies only on children with an ASD diagnosis. Data using this new methodology have not yet been reported.

In the new study from New Jersey, 767 children with autism were diagnosed by a pediatrician, neurologist, or other community provider. The remaining 175 children with autism, 18.6% of the total cohort, did not have an ASD diagnosis but met the ADDM case definition.

Under the new methodology, those children would not be counted.

“Something could be lost in the new methodology in terms of usefulness of the information because when the estimates are incomplete or low, that might lead people to make the wrong judgments when they make decisions about resources,” Dr. Zahorodny said.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The study authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in some New Jersey communities is triple the national average, a new analysis shows.

Investigators found that up to 10% of children in some of the state’s school districts have an ASD diagnosis vs. the national average of just under 2%.

School districts with higher ASD prevalence in the study have expansive health and educational programs in place to diagnose and support children with ASD, which likely contributed to the higher caseloads, senior investigator Walter Zahorodny, PhD, associate professor of pediatrics at New Jersey Medical School in Newark, said in an interview.

“When you have those players on the ground, it’s likely we’re going to be finding more, if not almost all, of the children with autism in a given district,” said Dr. Zahorodny, director of the New Jersey Autism Study for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The study was published online Oct. 21 in the journal Autism Research.
 

Local analysis

Researchers used the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network, a surveillance method developed by the CDC that includes data collected from health and special education records of children living in 11 communities across the United States. New Jersey is one of the ADDM participating sites.

National data are important, but Dr. Zahorodny and colleagues wanted to examine ASD prevalence at a more granular level, comparing prevalence district by district.

They examined data from 5,453 children who were 8 years old in 2016 and attended public school in Essex, Hudson, Ocean, and Union counties.

The prevalence of ASD was 36 children per 1,000 overall. Hudson County reported the lowest rate, at 31 cases per 1,000 children, and Ocean County reported the highest, at 54 cases per 1,000 children.

Across the region, ASD prevalence was four times higher in boys vs. girls, mirroring national statistics.

High ASD prevalence was more likely in mid-socioeconomic status districts (prevalence ratio [PR], 1.2; P = .01) and in larger school districts (PR, 1.3; P = .004).

Hispanic children had significantly lower ASD prevalence overall compared with White children (PR, 0.6; P < .001). In fact, prevalence was 30%-60% lower among Hispanic children in three of four counties compared with White children.

Another study is underway to better understand why autism rates were lower in specific districts and Hispanic children overall, but Dr. Zahorodny said one possibility is a lack of resources in those districts.
 

Will new methodology miss cases?

The study’s methodology was used by the CDC from 2000 to 2016 and includes assessment of children who have an ASD diagnosis, and children who haven’t received a diagnosis but have documented behaviors consistent with ASD.

In 2018, it was replaced with a less comprehensive approach that relies only on children with an ASD diagnosis. Data using this new methodology have not yet been reported.

In the new study from New Jersey, 767 children with autism were diagnosed by a pediatrician, neurologist, or other community provider. The remaining 175 children with autism, 18.6% of the total cohort, did not have an ASD diagnosis but met the ADDM case definition.

Under the new methodology, those children would not be counted.

“Something could be lost in the new methodology in terms of usefulness of the information because when the estimates are incomplete or low, that might lead people to make the wrong judgments when they make decisions about resources,” Dr. Zahorodny said.

The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. The study authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” said lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis.

The study, published online Oct. 20 in Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, Alzheimer’s disease, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid beta, a hallmark sign of Alzheimer’s disease.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University. Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR >0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both). The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta-42 ratio, APOE ε4 allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” said lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis.

The study, published online Oct. 20 in Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, Alzheimer’s disease, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid beta, a hallmark sign of Alzheimer’s disease.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University. Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR >0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both). The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta-42 ratio, APOE ε4 allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Sleeping too much or too little can lead to cognitive decline over time, but new research suggests there could be a sleep time “sweet spot” that stabilizes cognitive function.

In a longitudinal study, investigators found older adults who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night reported significant cognitive decline over time, but cognitive scores for those with sleep duration in between that range remained stable.

“This really suggests that there’s this middle range, a ‘sweet spot,’ where your sleep is really optimal,” said lead author Brendan Lucey, MD, MSCI, associate professor of neurology and director of the Washington University Sleep Medicine Center, St. Louis.

The study, published online Oct. 20 in Brain, is part of a growing body of research that seeks to determine if sleep can be used as a marker of Alzheimer’s disease progression.
 

A complex relationship

Studies suggest a strong relationship between sleep patterns and Alzheimer’s disease, which affects nearly 6 million Americans. The challenge, Dr. Lucey said, is unwinding the complex links between sleep, Alzheimer’s disease, and cognitive function.

An earlier study by Dr. Lucey and colleagues found that poor sleep quality is associated with early signs of Alzheimer’s disease, and a report published in September found that elderly people who slept less than 6 hours a night had a greater burden of amyloid beta, a hallmark sign of Alzheimer’s disease.

For this new study, researchers monitored sleep-wake activity over 4-6 nights in 100 participants who underwent annual cognitive assessments and clinical studies, including APOE genotyping, as part of a longitudinal study at the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center at Washington University. Participants also provided cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) total tau and amyloid-beta42 and wore a small EEG device on their forehead while they slept.

The majority of participants had a clinical dementia rating (CDR) score of 0, indicating no cognitive impairment. Twelve individuals had a CDR >0, with most reporting mild cognitive impairment.

As expected, CSF analysis showed greater evidence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in those with a baseline CDR greater than 0.

Changes in cognitive function were measured using a Preclinical Alzheimer Cognitive Composite (PACC) score, a composite of results from a neuropsychological testing battery that included the Free and Cued Selective Reminding Test, the Logical Memory Delayed Recall Test from the Wechsler Memory Scale-Revised, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised, and the Mini-Mental State Examination.

Researchers found an upside-down U-shaped relationship between PACC scores and sleep duration, with dramatic cognitive decline in those who slept less than 4.5 hours or more than 6.5 hours a night (P < .001 for both). The U-shaped relationship was also found with measures of sleep phases, including time spent in rapid eye movement and in non-REM sleep (P < .001 for both).

The findings persisted even after controlling for confounders that can affect sleep and cognition, such as age, CSF total tau/amyloid-beta-42 ratio, APOE ε4 allele carrier status, years of education, and sex.

Understanding how sleep changes at different stages of Alzheimer’s disease could help researchers determine if sleep can be used as a marker of disease progression, Dr. Lucey said. That could lead to interventions to slow that process.

“We’re not at the point yet where we can say that we need to monitor someone’s sleep time and then do an intervention to see if it would improve their risk for cognitive decline,” said Dr. Lucey, who plans to repeat this sleep study with the same cohort to track changes in sleep patterns and cognitive function over time. “But that’s a question I’m very excited to try to answer.”
 

A component of cognitive health

Commenting on the findings, Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that the study adds to a body of evidence linking sleep and cognition, especially how sleep quality can optimize brain function.

“We’ve seen previous research that’s shown poor sleep contributes to dementia risk, as well as research showing sleep duration may play a role in cognition,” she said.

“We also need studies that look at sleep as an intervention for cognitive health,” Dr. Snyder said. “Sleep is an important aspect of our overall health. Clinicians should have conversations with their patients about sleep as part of standard discussions about their health habits and wellness.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, the American Sleep Medicine Foundation, the Roger and Paula Riney Fund, and the Daniel J. Brennan, MD Fund. Dr. Lucey consults for Merck and Eli Lilly. Dr. Snyder has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Full disclosures are included in the original article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Misuse of buprenorphine in the United States by patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) dropped sharply between 2015 and 2019, new research shows.

Analyses of data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health also showed that about 50% of the patients with OUD were not receiving substance use treatment – and that some may be misusing buprenorphine in an effort to self-treat their addiction.

Interestingly, there was no association between buprenorphine misuse and income among those with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status regardless of OUD status, which bucks commonly held perceptions of those with the disorder.

Overall, the findings “underscore the need to pursue actions that expand access to buprenorphine-based OUD treatment, to develop strategies to monitor and reduce buprenorphine misuse, and to address associated conditions,” the investigators, led by Beth Han, MD, PhD, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), write.

The study was published online October 15 in JAMA Network Open.
 

Opioid deaths

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show more than 93,000 individuals in the United States died from a drug overdose in 2020, a 29.4% increase from the previous year. Of those deaths, 69,710 involved opioids.

Buprenorphine, a medication approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat OUD, has been shown to reduce opioid cravings and withdrawal symptoms and lower overdose risk.

The new survey included responses from 214,505 adults. Of these, 51.7% were women, 45.5% were age 50 years or older, and 63.9% were non-Hispanic White.

Responses were collected between 2015-2019 as part of an annual survey administered annually by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Misuse was defined as any use outside the prescribed amount, frequency, duration, or indication.

In 2019, hydrocodone, oxycodone, codeine, and tramadol were the most misused prescription opioid products. An estimated 2.4 million adults used buprenorphine, with 1.7 million reporting no misuse in the past 12 months.

While buprenorphine misuse was stable between 2015 and 2019 among individuals without OUD, misuse declined significantly among those with OUD – from 20.5% in 2015 to 15.9% in 2019 (P = .04).
 

A different picture of misuse

The demographic data reveals a picture of buprenorphine misuse that researchers note is quite different from common perceptions about people with substance use.

Those with OUD who misused buprenorphine were more likely to be non-Hispanic White (82.9% vs. 73.6%, respectively) and less likely to live in large metropolitan areas (47.7% vs. 58.1%).

Among participants with OUD, buprenorphine misuse was significantly associated with age, especially in those between 24 and 34 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-5.8) and between 35 and 49 years (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.2-4.5).

It was also significantly associated with living in nonmetropolitan areas (aOR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-3.0) and having past-year polysubstance use and use disorders (aOR, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.3-11.2); but negatively associated with past-year treatment for illicit drug use–only treatment (aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7).

There was no significant association between buprenorphine misuse and income in participants with OUD or with race, ethnicity, or insurance status, regardless of OUD status.

“Perceptions that persons of racial and ethnic minority groups and people living in poverty are more likely to misuse their medication are incorrect,” the researchers write.

“Nevertheless, these factors have been found to be important factors associated with opioid harms and receipt of buprenorphine treatment,” they add.

Between 2015 and 2017, the largest increase in opioid-related drug overdose deaths was among Black people aged 25 to 34, and the largest increase involving synthetic opioids was among Hispanic individuals aged 45 to 54. At the same time, White people were more likely to receive buprenorphine treatment for OUD.
 

‘Don’t exaggerate concerns’

Among survey participants with OUD, 57% of those who had misused buprenorphine in the past year had received no substance use treatment. Among those with OUD who had not misused the drug in the past year, 49% had received no treatment for their addiction.

The most common reason for buprenorphine misuse cited by those with OUD was “because I am hooked” (27.3%), which researchers said suggests people may be taking buprenorphine without a prescription to self-treat their OUD.

The investigators note that although buprenorphine is inexpensive and effective, clinicians currently must receive a federal waiver to prescribe it to more than 30 patients at a time.

Concern over potential misuse may be one reason some clinicians have been reluctant to complete the training process. However, the study results showed misuse rates of other opioids, including oxycodone and hydrocodone, were higher than those reported for buprenorphine.

“Many other prescription opioids are misused at much higher rates,” co-investigator Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of NIDA, told this news organization.

“While there are concerns about all of them, we want to make sure that people don’t exaggerate the concerns – and understanding that oxycodone and hydrocodone are so much more frequently misused is important,” added Dr. Compton.
 

Symptom of inadequate access?

Commenting on the research, Bobby Mukkamala, MD, chair of the American Medical Association Board of Trustees, said individuals who misuse buprenorphine “commonly do so to alleviate uncontrolled pain or symptoms of withdrawal.”

“So-called misuse of buprenorphine is a symptom of inadequate access to physicians to treat opioid use disorder,” said Dr. Mukkamala, who also chairs the AMA Substance Use and Pain Care Task Force.

A 2020 study from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services showed 40% of U.S. counties have no clinicians with a federal waiver permitting them to prescribe buprenorphine in an office setting.

In April, the HHS released new practice guidelines that allow certain practitioners licensed under state law who have a valid Drug Enforcement Administration registration to treat up to 30 patients with buprenorphine without having to complete requirements related to training, counseling, and other ancillary services known as an “X-waiver.”

The move was welcomed by many in the field, but Dr. Mukkamala said the agency did not go far enough.

“The AMA supports removing the federal X-waiver requirement to help destigmatize the provision of buprenorphine as well as remove the many administrative barriers that come with the federal requirement,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The study authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.