Clinical Psychiatry News

TOPLINE:

Risk for dementia is nearly 80% higher in stroke survivors than in those without stroke, a new study reveals. The data suggest risk declines within 1 year after stroke but remains elevated for up to 20 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-wide analysis of over 15 million people in Canada between 2002 and 2022. The study focused on adults hospitalized for ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
• Of 175,980 stroke survivors, 99% were matched 1:1 to residents without stroke on the basis of age, sex, rural residence, neighborhood deprivation, and vascular comorbidities. In addition, 90% of patients were matched to those with AMI.
• Incident dementia diagnoses were tracked starting 90 days after stroke until death, emigration, or the end of the study, using a validated algorithm based on hospitalization for dementia, prescriptions for cholinesterase inhibitors, or physician claims within 2 years.
• The mean follow-up duration was 5.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among stroke survivors, 19% were diagnosed with dementia vs 12.5% in the reference population. The dementia rate per 100 person-years was higher among stroke survivors than in the reference population over the entire follow-up period (3.34 vs 1.89).
• Over the entire study period, dementia was 76% more likely among stroke patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.73-1.79) and 82% more likely in the AMI cohort (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.79-1.85) than in the reference population.
• Time-varying analysis revealed that dementia risk was highest within the first year after stroke, with a > 2.5-fold increase at 6 months (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.42-2.59), which decreased to a 1.5-fold increase at 5 years (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.48-1.56) but remained elevated compared with the reference population even 20 years after the index stroke.
• Recurrent stroke was associated with an approximately threefold increased risk for dementia (single recurrent stroke adjusted HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.54-2.74; multiple recurrent strokes adjusted HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 2.81-3.33).

IN PRACTICE:

“While much research has been focused on reducing the risk of a second stroke, our findings make it clear that more research also is needed on developing interventions to help prevent dementia after stroke,” lead author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a press release.

“There is a need to accelerate the implementation of promising interventions or multipronged approaches into large randomized controlled trials to lower the risk of dementia,” the investigators wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on December 4 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included reliance on administrative coding without imaging data, potential underestimation of mild dementia, and lack of granular information on stroke severity, disability, and prestroke cognitive decline. While adjustments were made for healthcare contact and secondary prevention medications, residual biases may have persisted.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Canada Brain Research Fund, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Canadian Stroke Consortium. Two authors hold awards and positions from national organizations and academic institutions in Canada. Additional details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Risk for dementia is nearly 80% higher in stroke survivors than in those without stroke, a new study reveals. The data suggest risk declines within 1 year after stroke but remains elevated for up to 20 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-wide analysis of over 15 million people in Canada between 2002 and 2022. The study focused on adults hospitalized for ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
• Of 175,980 stroke survivors, 99% were matched 1:1 to residents without stroke on the basis of age, sex, rural residence, neighborhood deprivation, and vascular comorbidities. In addition, 90% of patients were matched to those with AMI.
• Incident dementia diagnoses were tracked starting 90 days after stroke until death, emigration, or the end of the study, using a validated algorithm based on hospitalization for dementia, prescriptions for cholinesterase inhibitors, or physician claims within 2 years.
• The mean follow-up duration was 5.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among stroke survivors, 19% were diagnosed with dementia vs 12.5% in the reference population. The dementia rate per 100 person-years was higher among stroke survivors than in the reference population over the entire follow-up period (3.34 vs 1.89).
• Over the entire study period, dementia was 76% more likely among stroke patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.73-1.79) and 82% more likely in the AMI cohort (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.79-1.85) than in the reference population.
• Time-varying analysis revealed that dementia risk was highest within the first year after stroke, with a > 2.5-fold increase at 6 months (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.42-2.59), which decreased to a 1.5-fold increase at 5 years (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.48-1.56) but remained elevated compared with the reference population even 20 years after the index stroke.
• Recurrent stroke was associated with an approximately threefold increased risk for dementia (single recurrent stroke adjusted HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.54-2.74; multiple recurrent strokes adjusted HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 2.81-3.33).

IN PRACTICE:

“While much research has been focused on reducing the risk of a second stroke, our findings make it clear that more research also is needed on developing interventions to help prevent dementia after stroke,” lead author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a press release.

“There is a need to accelerate the implementation of promising interventions or multipronged approaches into large randomized controlled trials to lower the risk of dementia,” the investigators wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on December 4 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included reliance on administrative coding without imaging data, potential underestimation of mild dementia, and lack of granular information on stroke severity, disability, and prestroke cognitive decline. While adjustments were made for healthcare contact and secondary prevention medications, residual biases may have persisted.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Canada Brain Research Fund, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Canadian Stroke Consortium. Two authors hold awards and positions from national organizations and academic institutions in Canada. Additional details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Risk for dementia is nearly 80% higher in stroke survivors than in those without stroke, a new study reveals. The data suggest risk declines within 1 year after stroke but remains elevated for up to 20 years.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a population-wide analysis of over 15 million people in Canada between 2002 and 2022. The study focused on adults hospitalized for ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or acute myocardial infarction (AMI).
• Of 175,980 stroke survivors, 99% were matched 1:1 to residents without stroke on the basis of age, sex, rural residence, neighborhood deprivation, and vascular comorbidities. In addition, 90% of patients were matched to those with AMI.
• Incident dementia diagnoses were tracked starting 90 days after stroke until death, emigration, or the end of the study, using a validated algorithm based on hospitalization for dementia, prescriptions for cholinesterase inhibitors, or physician claims within 2 years.
• The mean follow-up duration was 5.6 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among stroke survivors, 19% were diagnosed with dementia vs 12.5% in the reference population. The dementia rate per 100 person-years was higher among stroke survivors than in the reference population over the entire follow-up period (3.34 vs 1.89).
• Over the entire study period, dementia was 76% more likely among stroke patients (hazard ratio [HR], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.73-1.79) and 82% more likely in the AMI cohort (HR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.79-1.85) than in the reference population.
• Time-varying analysis revealed that dementia risk was highest within the first year after stroke, with a > 2.5-fold increase at 6 months (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 2.42-2.59), which decreased to a 1.5-fold increase at 5 years (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.48-1.56) but remained elevated compared with the reference population even 20 years after the index stroke.
• Recurrent stroke was associated with an approximately threefold increased risk for dementia (single recurrent stroke adjusted HR, 2.64; 95% CI, 2.54-2.74; multiple recurrent strokes adjusted HR, 3.05; 95% CI, 2.81-3.33).

IN PRACTICE:

“While much research has been focused on reducing the risk of a second stroke, our findings make it clear that more research also is needed on developing interventions to help prevent dementia after stroke,” lead author Raed A. Joundi, MD, DPhil, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, said in a press release.

“There is a need to accelerate the implementation of promising interventions or multipronged approaches into large randomized controlled trials to lower the risk of dementia,” the investigators wrote.
 

SOURCE:

The study was published online on December 4 in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations included reliance on administrative coding without imaging data, potential underestimation of mild dementia, and lack of granular information on stroke severity, disability, and prestroke cognitive decline. While adjustments were made for healthcare contact and secondary prevention medications, residual biases may have persisted.

DISCLOSURES:

This study received funding from the Canada Brain Research Fund, Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada, and Canadian Stroke Consortium. Two authors hold awards and positions from national organizations and academic institutions in Canada. Additional details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new federal rule could force hospitals and doctors’ groups to boost health cybersecurity measures to better protect patients’ health information and prevent ransomware attacks. Some of the proposed requirements could be expensive for healthcare providers.

The proposed rule, issued by the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and published on January 6 in the Federal Register, marks the first time in a decade that the federal government has updated regulations governing the security of private health information (PHI) that’s kept or shared online. Comments on the rule are due on March 6.

Because the risks for cyberattacks have increased exponentially, “there is a greater need to invest than ever before in both people and technologies to secure patient information,” Adam Greene, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington, DC, who advises healthcare clients on cybersecurity, said in an interview.

Bad actors continue to evolve and are often far ahead of their targets, added Mark Fox, privacy and research compliance officer for the American College of Cardiology.

In the proposed rule, HHS noted that breaches have risen by more than 50% since 2020. Damages from health data breaches are more expensive than in any other sector, averaging $10 million per incident, said HHS.

The damage can continue for years, as much of the data — such as date of birth — in PHI are “immutable,” unlike a credit card number, the agency said. A review of breach reports made to HHS’ Office for Civil Rights shows near-daily data breaches affecting hundreds to tens of thousands of patients. Since December 1 alone, healthcare providers reported breaches affecting nearly 3 million US patients, according to federal data.

Debi Carr, a Florida-based cybersecurity consultant for small physician and dental practices, welcomed the new proposal. “Many practices are clinging to doing things the way they have always done it, and hackers are taking full advantage of that mindset,” she said in an interview. “We have to change our mindset.”

Among the proposal’s recommendations:

• A shift away from making security specifications “addressable” to required. Fox said that many interpreted addressable to mean optional. The clarification is important. The government will require greater accountability, including a requirement to annually revise the risk analysis, to review policies and procedures and implementation, and to perform penetration testing, said Greene.
• Requiring multifactor authentication (MFA) and encryption of PHI at rest and in transit. “A reasonable person who does security will tell you that should be a requirement,” said Fox. Carr added that the February 2024 Change Healthcare ransomware attack happened because workers at the payment processing company were not using MFA.
• Requiring all entities to verify at least once a year that “business associates” have put into place the required safeguards; the associates would need to provide a written analysis of relevant electronic information systems by a subject matter expert and a written certification that the analysis has been performed and is accurate. In the past, the rule “only required that you sign a business associate agreement” with the associate, which could be a payer, a pharmacy, or another physician practice, said Fox. The rule would require all entities to get certification that the controls are in place.
• Requiring a detailed map of an electronic network. For a physician practice, that means creating an inventory of all the technology assets, including devices, applications, and anything that would touch electronic PHI, and then creating a map of how it comes into the office, flows through it, and departs, said Greene.
• Having a plan of action in the case of a breach. The rule will require written procedures to restore certain relevant systems and data within 72 hours and written incident response plans.

Some physician practices — especially those still relying on passwords instead of more sophisticated MFA or encryption — may have to invest significantly to strengthen their information security, said Greene. Smaller organizations, for example, may need to upgrade systems to ensure that user access is terminated within an hour after someone’s employment ends.

Carr said practices should not view the investments as a burden. The regulation “will force practices to implement best cybersecurity practices,” she said.

Implementing those best practices serves as insurance, said Fox. He suggests that anyone in doubt “talk to someone who’s actually lived through a breach and had to recover.”

Tampa General Hospital in Florida, for instance, recently settled a class action suit, agreeing to pay $6.8 million to patients whose PHI was compromised.

It is not certain whether or when the health cybersecurity rule will be made final.

The incoming Trump administration could cancel or delay the rulemaking process.

Even if it continues, “I would not expect a final rule in 2025,” said Greene. He estimates that the rule would not take effect until at least 2026; healthcare entities would have 180 days to comply. Still, those 180 days can go by fast.

“I would say don’t panic, but don’t ignore it either,” he said.

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

A new federal rule could force hospitals and doctors’ groups to boost health cybersecurity measures to better protect patients’ health information and prevent ransomware attacks. Some of the proposed requirements could be expensive for healthcare providers.

The proposed rule, issued by the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and published on January 6 in the Federal Register, marks the first time in a decade that the federal government has updated regulations governing the security of private health information (PHI) that’s kept or shared online. Comments on the rule are due on March 6.

Because the risks for cyberattacks have increased exponentially, “there is a greater need to invest than ever before in both people and technologies to secure patient information,” Adam Greene, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington, DC, who advises healthcare clients on cybersecurity, said in an interview.

Bad actors continue to evolve and are often far ahead of their targets, added Mark Fox, privacy and research compliance officer for the American College of Cardiology.

In the proposed rule, HHS noted that breaches have risen by more than 50% since 2020. Damages from health data breaches are more expensive than in any other sector, averaging $10 million per incident, said HHS.

The damage can continue for years, as much of the data — such as date of birth — in PHI are “immutable,” unlike a credit card number, the agency said. A review of breach reports made to HHS’ Office for Civil Rights shows near-daily data breaches affecting hundreds to tens of thousands of patients. Since December 1 alone, healthcare providers reported breaches affecting nearly 3 million US patients, according to federal data.

Debi Carr, a Florida-based cybersecurity consultant for small physician and dental practices, welcomed the new proposal. “Many practices are clinging to doing things the way they have always done it, and hackers are taking full advantage of that mindset,” she said in an interview. “We have to change our mindset.”

Among the proposal’s recommendations:

• A shift away from making security specifications “addressable” to required. Fox said that many interpreted addressable to mean optional. The clarification is important. The government will require greater accountability, including a requirement to annually revise the risk analysis, to review policies and procedures and implementation, and to perform penetration testing, said Greene.
• Requiring multifactor authentication (MFA) and encryption of PHI at rest and in transit. “A reasonable person who does security will tell you that should be a requirement,” said Fox. Carr added that the February 2024 Change Healthcare ransomware attack happened because workers at the payment processing company were not using MFA.
• Requiring all entities to verify at least once a year that “business associates” have put into place the required safeguards; the associates would need to provide a written analysis of relevant electronic information systems by a subject matter expert and a written certification that the analysis has been performed and is accurate. In the past, the rule “only required that you sign a business associate agreement” with the associate, which could be a payer, a pharmacy, or another physician practice, said Fox. The rule would require all entities to get certification that the controls are in place.
• Requiring a detailed map of an electronic network. For a physician practice, that means creating an inventory of all the technology assets, including devices, applications, and anything that would touch electronic PHI, and then creating a map of how it comes into the office, flows through it, and departs, said Greene.
• Having a plan of action in the case of a breach. The rule will require written procedures to restore certain relevant systems and data within 72 hours and written incident response plans.

Some physician practices — especially those still relying on passwords instead of more sophisticated MFA or encryption — may have to invest significantly to strengthen their information security, said Greene. Smaller organizations, for example, may need to upgrade systems to ensure that user access is terminated within an hour after someone’s employment ends.

Carr said practices should not view the investments as a burden. The regulation “will force practices to implement best cybersecurity practices,” she said.

Implementing those best practices serves as insurance, said Fox. He suggests that anyone in doubt “talk to someone who’s actually lived through a breach and had to recover.”

Tampa General Hospital in Florida, for instance, recently settled a class action suit, agreeing to pay $6.8 million to patients whose PHI was compromised.

It is not certain whether or when the health cybersecurity rule will be made final.

The incoming Trump administration could cancel or delay the rulemaking process.

Even if it continues, “I would not expect a final rule in 2025,” said Greene. He estimates that the rule would not take effect until at least 2026; healthcare entities would have 180 days to comply. Still, those 180 days can go by fast.

“I would say don’t panic, but don’t ignore it either,” he said.

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

A new federal rule could force hospitals and doctors’ groups to boost health cybersecurity measures to better protect patients’ health information and prevent ransomware attacks. Some of the proposed requirements could be expensive for healthcare providers.

The proposed rule, issued by the US Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) and published on January 6 in the Federal Register, marks the first time in a decade that the federal government has updated regulations governing the security of private health information (PHI) that’s kept or shared online. Comments on the rule are due on March 6.

Because the risks for cyberattacks have increased exponentially, “there is a greater need to invest than ever before in both people and technologies to secure patient information,” Adam Greene, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine in Washington, DC, who advises healthcare clients on cybersecurity, said in an interview.

Bad actors continue to evolve and are often far ahead of their targets, added Mark Fox, privacy and research compliance officer for the American College of Cardiology.

In the proposed rule, HHS noted that breaches have risen by more than 50% since 2020. Damages from health data breaches are more expensive than in any other sector, averaging $10 million per incident, said HHS.

The damage can continue for years, as much of the data — such as date of birth — in PHI are “immutable,” unlike a credit card number, the agency said. A review of breach reports made to HHS’ Office for Civil Rights shows near-daily data breaches affecting hundreds to tens of thousands of patients. Since December 1 alone, healthcare providers reported breaches affecting nearly 3 million US patients, according to federal data.

Debi Carr, a Florida-based cybersecurity consultant for small physician and dental practices, welcomed the new proposal. “Many practices are clinging to doing things the way they have always done it, and hackers are taking full advantage of that mindset,” she said in an interview. “We have to change our mindset.”

Among the proposal’s recommendations:

• A shift away from making security specifications “addressable” to required. Fox said that many interpreted addressable to mean optional. The clarification is important. The government will require greater accountability, including a requirement to annually revise the risk analysis, to review policies and procedures and implementation, and to perform penetration testing, said Greene.
• Requiring multifactor authentication (MFA) and encryption of PHI at rest and in transit. “A reasonable person who does security will tell you that should be a requirement,” said Fox. Carr added that the February 2024 Change Healthcare ransomware attack happened because workers at the payment processing company were not using MFA.
• Requiring all entities to verify at least once a year that “business associates” have put into place the required safeguards; the associates would need to provide a written analysis of relevant electronic information systems by a subject matter expert and a written certification that the analysis has been performed and is accurate. In the past, the rule “only required that you sign a business associate agreement” with the associate, which could be a payer, a pharmacy, or another physician practice, said Fox. The rule would require all entities to get certification that the controls are in place.
• Requiring a detailed map of an electronic network. For a physician practice, that means creating an inventory of all the technology assets, including devices, applications, and anything that would touch electronic PHI, and then creating a map of how it comes into the office, flows through it, and departs, said Greene.
• Having a plan of action in the case of a breach. The rule will require written procedures to restore certain relevant systems and data within 72 hours and written incident response plans.

Some physician practices — especially those still relying on passwords instead of more sophisticated MFA or encryption — may have to invest significantly to strengthen their information security, said Greene. Smaller organizations, for example, may need to upgrade systems to ensure that user access is terminated within an hour after someone’s employment ends.

Carr said practices should not view the investments as a burden. The regulation “will force practices to implement best cybersecurity practices,” she said.

Implementing those best practices serves as insurance, said Fox. He suggests that anyone in doubt “talk to someone who’s actually lived through a breach and had to recover.”

Tampa General Hospital in Florida, for instance, recently settled a class action suit, agreeing to pay $6.8 million to patients whose PHI was compromised.

It is not certain whether or when the health cybersecurity rule will be made final.

The incoming Trump administration could cancel or delay the rulemaking process.

Even if it continues, “I would not expect a final rule in 2025,” said Greene. He estimates that the rule would not take effect until at least 2026; healthcare entities would have 180 days to comply. Still, those 180 days can go by fast.

“I would say don’t panic, but don’t ignore it either,” he said.

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

Higher rates of leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen are linked to increased short-term mortality or hospitalization, according to a cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

“We found that after 2020, there was a 14% higher risk for death or hospitalization within 7 days” among patients who left without being seen (LWBS), Candace McNaughton, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and scientist at Sunnybrook Research Institute, both in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“When we looked at death by itself, there was a 46% higher risk after 2020,” she said. “Even 30 days after a LWBS ED visit, there was still a 5% increased risk for death/hospitalization and a 24% increased risk for death.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open.

 

LWBS Rates Increased 

Researchers used linked administrative data to analyze temporal trends in monthly rates of ED and LWBS visits for adults in Ontario from 2014 to 2023.

They compared the composite outcome of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization following an LWBS ED visit in April 2022‒March 2023 (recent period) with that following an LWBS ED visit in April 2014‒March 2020 (baseline period), after adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

In the two periods, patient characteristics were similar across age, sex, neighborhood-level income quartile, history of being unhoused, rurality, CCI, day, time, and mode of arrival. The median age was 40 years for the baseline period and 42 years for the recent period.

Temporal trends showed sustained increases in monthly LWBS rates after 2020, despite fewer monthly ED visits. The rate of LWBS ED visits after April 1, 2020, exceeded the baseline period’s single-month LWBS maximum of 4% in 15 of 36 months.

The rate of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization was 3.4% in the recent period vs 2.9% in the baseline period (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.14), despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (7-day recent and baseline, 38.9% and 39.7%, respectively).

Similar trends were seen at 30 days for all-cause mortality or hospitalization (6.2% in the recent period vs 5.8% at baseline; aRR, 1.05) despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (59.4% and 59.7%, respectively).

After April 1, 2020, monthly ED visits and the proportion of patients who LWBS varied widely.

The proportion of LWBS visits categorized as emergent on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale was higher during the recent period (12.9% vs 9.2% in the baseline period), and fewer visits were categorized as semiurgent (22.6% vs 31.9%, respectively). This finding suggested a higher acuity of illness among patients who LWBS in the recent period.

 

LWBS Visits ‘Not Benign’

Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis examining the risk for all-cause mortality after an LWBS visit were “particularly notable,” the authors wrote, with a 46% higher adjusted risk for death at 7 days and 24% higher adjusted risk at 30 days.

The observational study had several limitations, however. The authors could not draw conclusions regarding direct causes of the increased risk for severe short-term adverse health outcomes after an LWBS ED visit, and residual confounding is possible. Cause-of-death information was not available to generate hypotheses for future studies of potential causes. Furthermore, the findings may not be generalizable to systems without universal access to healthcare.

Nevertheless, the findings are a “concerning signal [and] should prompt interventions to address system- and population-level causes,” the authors wrote.

“Unfortunately, because of politics, since 2020, ED closures in Ontario have become more and more common and seem to be affecting more and more Ontarians,” said McNaughton. “It would be surprising if ED closure didn’t play some role in our findings.”

She added, “It is important to note that people in our study were relatively young, with a median age in their 40s; this makes our findings all the more concerning. Clinicians should be aware that LWBS ED visits are not necessarily benign, particularly when rates of LWBS ED visits are high.”

 

Unanswered Questions

The study raised the following questions that the authors are or will be investigating, according to McNaughton: 

• Which patients are at greatest risk for bad outcomes if they leave the ED without being seen, and why?
• How much of the findings might be related to recent ED closures, longer ED wait times, or other factors? Are there geographic variations in risk?
• What can be done in the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits, and what can be changed outside the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits? For example, what can hospitals do to reduce boarding in the ED? If patients leave without being seen, should they be contacted to try to meet their health needs in other ways?
• What worked in terms of maintaining access to outpatient medical care, despite the considerable disruptions starting in 2020, and how can continued success be ensured?

To address the current situation, McNaughton said, “We need consistent, predictable, and sustained investment in our public healthcare system. We need long-term, consistent funding for primary care, ED care, as well as hospital and long-term care.”

“It takes years to recruit and train the teams of people necessary to provide the high-quality medical care that Canadians have a right to. There are no shortcuts,” she concluded.

 

‘Tragic Situation’

American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) spokesperson Jesse Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions; clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC; and professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University in Philadelphia, commented on the study for this news organization.

“Similar to what the authors found in their report, LWBS and other metrics — specifically boarding — have progressively increased in the United States, in particular, since the early part of 2021,” he said. “The primary factor in the US driving this, and one that ACEP is trying to address on a national scale, is the boarding of admitted patients.”

When the number of boarded patients increases, there is less space in the ED for new patients, and waits increase, Pines explained. Some patients leave without being seen, and a subset of those patients experience poor outcomes. “It’s a tragic situation that is worsening.”

“Emergency physicians like me always worry when patients leave without being seen,” he said. While some of those patients have self-limited conditions that will improve on their own, “some have critical life-threatening conditions that require care and hospitalization. The worry is that these patients experience poorer outcomes,” Pines said. “The authors showed that this is increasingly the case in Canada. The same is likely true in the US.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. McNaughton and Pines declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher rates of leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen are linked to increased short-term mortality or hospitalization, according to a cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

“We found that after 2020, there was a 14% higher risk for death or hospitalization within 7 days” among patients who left without being seen (LWBS), Candace McNaughton, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and scientist at Sunnybrook Research Institute, both in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“When we looked at death by itself, there was a 46% higher risk after 2020,” she said. “Even 30 days after a LWBS ED visit, there was still a 5% increased risk for death/hospitalization and a 24% increased risk for death.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open.

 

LWBS Rates Increased 

Researchers used linked administrative data to analyze temporal trends in monthly rates of ED and LWBS visits for adults in Ontario from 2014 to 2023.

They compared the composite outcome of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization following an LWBS ED visit in April 2022‒March 2023 (recent period) with that following an LWBS ED visit in April 2014‒March 2020 (baseline period), after adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

In the two periods, patient characteristics were similar across age, sex, neighborhood-level income quartile, history of being unhoused, rurality, CCI, day, time, and mode of arrival. The median age was 40 years for the baseline period and 42 years for the recent period.

Temporal trends showed sustained increases in monthly LWBS rates after 2020, despite fewer monthly ED visits. The rate of LWBS ED visits after April 1, 2020, exceeded the baseline period’s single-month LWBS maximum of 4% in 15 of 36 months.

The rate of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization was 3.4% in the recent period vs 2.9% in the baseline period (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.14), despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (7-day recent and baseline, 38.9% and 39.7%, respectively).

Similar trends were seen at 30 days for all-cause mortality or hospitalization (6.2% in the recent period vs 5.8% at baseline; aRR, 1.05) despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (59.4% and 59.7%, respectively).

After April 1, 2020, monthly ED visits and the proportion of patients who LWBS varied widely.

The proportion of LWBS visits categorized as emergent on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale was higher during the recent period (12.9% vs 9.2% in the baseline period), and fewer visits were categorized as semiurgent (22.6% vs 31.9%, respectively). This finding suggested a higher acuity of illness among patients who LWBS in the recent period.

 

LWBS Visits ‘Not Benign’

Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis examining the risk for all-cause mortality after an LWBS visit were “particularly notable,” the authors wrote, with a 46% higher adjusted risk for death at 7 days and 24% higher adjusted risk at 30 days.

The observational study had several limitations, however. The authors could not draw conclusions regarding direct causes of the increased risk for severe short-term adverse health outcomes after an LWBS ED visit, and residual confounding is possible. Cause-of-death information was not available to generate hypotheses for future studies of potential causes. Furthermore, the findings may not be generalizable to systems without universal access to healthcare.

Nevertheless, the findings are a “concerning signal [and] should prompt interventions to address system- and population-level causes,” the authors wrote.

“Unfortunately, because of politics, since 2020, ED closures in Ontario have become more and more common and seem to be affecting more and more Ontarians,” said McNaughton. “It would be surprising if ED closure didn’t play some role in our findings.”

She added, “It is important to note that people in our study were relatively young, with a median age in their 40s; this makes our findings all the more concerning. Clinicians should be aware that LWBS ED visits are not necessarily benign, particularly when rates of LWBS ED visits are high.”

 

Unanswered Questions

The study raised the following questions that the authors are or will be investigating, according to McNaughton: 

• Which patients are at greatest risk for bad outcomes if they leave the ED without being seen, and why?
• How much of the findings might be related to recent ED closures, longer ED wait times, or other factors? Are there geographic variations in risk?
• What can be done in the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits, and what can be changed outside the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits? For example, what can hospitals do to reduce boarding in the ED? If patients leave without being seen, should they be contacted to try to meet their health needs in other ways?
• What worked in terms of maintaining access to outpatient medical care, despite the considerable disruptions starting in 2020, and how can continued success be ensured?

To address the current situation, McNaughton said, “We need consistent, predictable, and sustained investment in our public healthcare system. We need long-term, consistent funding for primary care, ED care, as well as hospital and long-term care.”

“It takes years to recruit and train the teams of people necessary to provide the high-quality medical care that Canadians have a right to. There are no shortcuts,” she concluded.

 

‘Tragic Situation’

American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) spokesperson Jesse Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions; clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC; and professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University in Philadelphia, commented on the study for this news organization.

“Similar to what the authors found in their report, LWBS and other metrics — specifically boarding — have progressively increased in the United States, in particular, since the early part of 2021,” he said. “The primary factor in the US driving this, and one that ACEP is trying to address on a national scale, is the boarding of admitted patients.”

When the number of boarded patients increases, there is less space in the ED for new patients, and waits increase, Pines explained. Some patients leave without being seen, and a subset of those patients experience poor outcomes. “It’s a tragic situation that is worsening.”

“Emergency physicians like me always worry when patients leave without being seen,” he said. While some of those patients have self-limited conditions that will improve on their own, “some have critical life-threatening conditions that require care and hospitalization. The worry is that these patients experience poorer outcomes,” Pines said. “The authors showed that this is increasingly the case in Canada. The same is likely true in the US.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. McNaughton and Pines declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Higher rates of leaving the emergency department (ED) without being seen are linked to increased short-term mortality or hospitalization, according to a cohort study in Ontario, Canada.

“We found that after 2020, there was a 14% higher risk for death or hospitalization within 7 days” among patients who left without being seen (LWBS), Candace McNaughton, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of Toronto and scientist at Sunnybrook Research Institute, both in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told this news organization.

“When we looked at death by itself, there was a 46% higher risk after 2020,” she said. “Even 30 days after a LWBS ED visit, there was still a 5% increased risk for death/hospitalization and a 24% increased risk for death.”

The study was published in the Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open.

 

LWBS Rates Increased 

Researchers used linked administrative data to analyze temporal trends in monthly rates of ED and LWBS visits for adults in Ontario from 2014 to 2023.

They compared the composite outcome of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization following an LWBS ED visit in April 2022‒March 2023 (recent period) with that following an LWBS ED visit in April 2014‒March 2020 (baseline period), after adjustment for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI).

In the two periods, patient characteristics were similar across age, sex, neighborhood-level income quartile, history of being unhoused, rurality, CCI, day, time, and mode of arrival. The median age was 40 years for the baseline period and 42 years for the recent period.

Temporal trends showed sustained increases in monthly LWBS rates after 2020, despite fewer monthly ED visits. The rate of LWBS ED visits after April 1, 2020, exceeded the baseline period’s single-month LWBS maximum of 4% in 15 of 36 months.

The rate of 7-day all-cause mortality or hospitalization was 3.4% in the recent period vs 2.9% in the baseline period (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.14), despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (7-day recent and baseline, 38.9% and 39.7%, respectively).

Similar trends were seen at 30 days for all-cause mortality or hospitalization (6.2% in the recent period vs 5.8% at baseline; aRR, 1.05) despite similar rates of post-ED outpatient visits (59.4% and 59.7%, respectively).

After April 1, 2020, monthly ED visits and the proportion of patients who LWBS varied widely.

The proportion of LWBS visits categorized as emergent on the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale was higher during the recent period (12.9% vs 9.2% in the baseline period), and fewer visits were categorized as semiurgent (22.6% vs 31.9%, respectively). This finding suggested a higher acuity of illness among patients who LWBS in the recent period.

 

LWBS Visits ‘Not Benign’

Results of a preplanned subgroup analysis examining the risk for all-cause mortality after an LWBS visit were “particularly notable,” the authors wrote, with a 46% higher adjusted risk for death at 7 days and 24% higher adjusted risk at 30 days.

The observational study had several limitations, however. The authors could not draw conclusions regarding direct causes of the increased risk for severe short-term adverse health outcomes after an LWBS ED visit, and residual confounding is possible. Cause-of-death information was not available to generate hypotheses for future studies of potential causes. Furthermore, the findings may not be generalizable to systems without universal access to healthcare.

Nevertheless, the findings are a “concerning signal [and] should prompt interventions to address system- and population-level causes,” the authors wrote.

“Unfortunately, because of politics, since 2020, ED closures in Ontario have become more and more common and seem to be affecting more and more Ontarians,” said McNaughton. “It would be surprising if ED closure didn’t play some role in our findings.”

She added, “It is important to note that people in our study were relatively young, with a median age in their 40s; this makes our findings all the more concerning. Clinicians should be aware that LWBS ED visits are not necessarily benign, particularly when rates of LWBS ED visits are high.”

 

Unanswered Questions

The study raised the following questions that the authors are or will be investigating, according to McNaughton: 

• Which patients are at greatest risk for bad outcomes if they leave the ED without being seen, and why?
• How much of the findings might be related to recent ED closures, longer ED wait times, or other factors? Are there geographic variations in risk?
• What can be done in the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits, and what can be changed outside the ED to prevent LWBS ED visits? For example, what can hospitals do to reduce boarding in the ED? If patients leave without being seen, should they be contacted to try to meet their health needs in other ways?
• What worked in terms of maintaining access to outpatient medical care, despite the considerable disruptions starting in 2020, and how can continued success be ensured?

To address the current situation, McNaughton said, “We need consistent, predictable, and sustained investment in our public healthcare system. We need long-term, consistent funding for primary care, ED care, as well as hospital and long-term care.”

“It takes years to recruit and train the teams of people necessary to provide the high-quality medical care that Canadians have a right to. There are no shortcuts,” she concluded.

 

‘Tragic Situation’

American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) spokesperson Jesse Pines, MD, chief of clinical innovation at US Acute Care Solutions; clinical professor of emergency medicine at George Washington University in Washington, DC; and professor of emergency medicine at Drexel University in Philadelphia, commented on the study for this news organization.

“Similar to what the authors found in their report, LWBS and other metrics — specifically boarding — have progressively increased in the United States, in particular, since the early part of 2021,” he said. “The primary factor in the US driving this, and one that ACEP is trying to address on a national scale, is the boarding of admitted patients.”

When the number of boarded patients increases, there is less space in the ED for new patients, and waits increase, Pines explained. Some patients leave without being seen, and a subset of those patients experience poor outcomes. “It’s a tragic situation that is worsening.”

“Emergency physicians like me always worry when patients leave without being seen,” he said. While some of those patients have self-limited conditions that will improve on their own, “some have critical life-threatening conditions that require care and hospitalization. The worry is that these patients experience poorer outcomes,” Pines said. “The authors showed that this is increasingly the case in Canada. The same is likely true in the US.”

The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. McNaughton and Pines declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions

According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.

Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.

This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.

 

Concerns Over Peer Reviews

The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.

She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.

 

AI Complicates Peer Review

The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.

Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.

In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”

The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’  remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.

This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions

According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.

Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.

This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.

 

Concerns Over Peer Reviews

The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.

She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.

 

AI Complicates Peer Review

The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.

Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.

In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”

The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’  remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.

This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The quality and credibility of scientific publications have received increasing scrutiny. Findings from studies by Maria Ángeles Oviedo-García, PhD, from the Department of Business and Marketing at the University of Seville in Spain, highlight growing concerns about the integrity of published research. Insights from the journal Science and the US blog Retraction Watch reveal similar concerns regarding research integrity.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spurs Low-Quality Submissions

According to a report in Science, journals are inundated with low-quality contributions such as letters and comments generated by AI. Daniel Prevedello, MD, editor in chief of Neurosurgical Review, announced that the journal would temporarily stop accepting these submissions because of their poor quality.

Neurosurgical Review is not the only journal to experience low-quality submissions. In the journal Oral Oncology Reports (Elsevier), comments comprised 70% of the content, whereas in the International Journal of Surgery Open (Wolters Kluwer), they accounted for nearly half. In Neurosurgical Review, letters, comments, and editorials made up 58% of the total content from January to October 2024, compared with only 9% in the previous year.

This trend benefits authors by allowing them to inflate their publication lists with quickly produced contributions that bypass peer review. Publishers may also profit, as many charge fees to publish comments. Additionally, universities and research institutions find this type of content generation useful as more publications can enhance their reputation.

 

Concerns Over Peer Reviews

The troubling behavior described by Oviedo-García in the journal Scientometrics raises further doubts. An analysis of 263 peer reviews from 37 journals revealed that reviewers often used identical or very similar phrases in their evaluations, regardless of the content. In one case, the reviewer used the same wording in 52 reviews. This suggests that some reviewers read the studies that they are supposed to evaluate only superficially. Such practices can lead to valueless reviews and jeopardize the integrity of scientific literature. “Some other researchers will probably base their future research on these fake reports, which is frightening, especially when it comes to health and medicine,” Oviedo-García stated.

She suspects that the reviewers may have relied on templates to produce their reports quickly. This allowed them to list this work on their resumes for potential career advantages. Some reviewers have reportedly even “requested” the authors of the studies they reviewed to cite their own scientific work.

 

AI Complicates Peer Review

The process of research and publication has become increasingly challenging in recent years, and more standard and predatory journals allow anyone to publish their work for a fee. Roger W. Byard, MD, PhD, from the University of Adelaide in Australia, explained this trend in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology. AI is increasingly being used to generate articles. At international conferences, experts have highlighted claims that AI can complete papers in just a few weeks and dissertations in less than a year. According to the authors of a letter in Critical Care, generative AI is infiltrating the peer review process.

Moreover, the peer review process can be bypassed by publishing research findings on online platforms (eg, preprint servers). Another issue is that some publications have hundreds of authors who can extend their publication list in this manner, even if their contribution to the publication is ambiguous or not substantial.

In a guest article for the Laborjournal, Ulrich Dirnagl, MD, PhD, from the Charité — Universitätsmedizin Berlin in Germany, emphasized that the scientific papers have become so complex that two or three experts often cannot thoroughly assess everything presented. The review process is time-consuming and can take several days for reviewers. Currently, very few people have time, especially because it is an unpaid and anonymous task. Dirnagl stated, “the self-correction of science no longer works as it claims.”

The old Russian saying ‘Dowjerjaj, no prowjerjaj: Trust, but verify’  remains a timeless recommendation that is likely to stay relevant for years to come.

This story was translated from Univadis Germany using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Donepezil was associated with improved verbal memory and enhanced recall and processing speed, compared with placebo, in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), with a favorable safety profile despite mild to moderate gastrointestinal side effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• A four-site, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 10-week clinical trial (MEMRI-TBI-D) was conducted between 2013 and 2019 to evaluate the efficacy of donepezil for verbal memory impairments following severe TBI.
• 75 adults (75% men; mean age, 37 years) with complicated mild, moderate, or severe nonpenetrating TBI at least 6 months prior to study participation were included and randomly assigned to receive donepezil (n = 37) or placebo (n = 38).
• Participants received 5 mg donepezil daily or matching placebo for 2 weeks, then donepezil at 10 mg daily or matching placebo for 8 weeks; treatment was discontinued at 10 weeks, with an additional 4-week observation period.
• Verbal memory was assessed using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R). The primary outcome measure was verbal learning, evaluated through the HVLT-R total recall (ie, Total Trials 1-3) score.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with placebo, donepezil was associated with significantly greater improvements in verbal learning in both modified intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses (P = .034 and .036, respectively).
• Treatment-responder rates were significantly higher in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (42 vs 18%; P = .03), with donepezil responders showing significant improvements in delayed recall and processing speed.
• Although there were no serious adverse events in either group, treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly more common in the donepezil group vs placebo (46% vs 8%; P < .001). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.
• Diarrhea and nausea were significantly more common in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (Fisher’s exact test: diarrhea, P = .03; nausea, P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrates the efficacy of donepezil on severe, persistent verbal memory impairments after predominantly severe TBI, with significant benefit for a subset of persons with such injuries, as well as a relatively favorable safety and tolerability profile,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David B. Arciniegas, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. It was published online in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample with predominantly severe TBI requiring hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation. The sample characteristics limit the generalizability of the findings to persons with other severities of TBI, other types of memory impairments, or more complex neuropsychiatric presentations. The study population had an average of 14 years of education, making generalizability to individuals with lower education levels uncertain. Additionally, while measures of information processing speed and immediate auditory attention were included, specific measures of sustained or selective attention were not, making it difficult to rule out improvements in higher-level attention as potential contributors to the observed verbal memory performance improvements.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, with in-kind support from TIRR Memorial Hermann. Four authors disclosed various financial and professional affiliations, including advisory roles with pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, support from institutional awards, and involvement in programs funded by external organizations. One author served as the editor of The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, with an independent editor overseeing the review and publication process for this article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Donepezil was associated with improved verbal memory and enhanced recall and processing speed, compared with placebo, in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), with a favorable safety profile despite mild to moderate gastrointestinal side effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• A four-site, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 10-week clinical trial (MEMRI-TBI-D) was conducted between 2013 and 2019 to evaluate the efficacy of donepezil for verbal memory impairments following severe TBI.
• 75 adults (75% men; mean age, 37 years) with complicated mild, moderate, or severe nonpenetrating TBI at least 6 months prior to study participation were included and randomly assigned to receive donepezil (n = 37) or placebo (n = 38).
• Participants received 5 mg donepezil daily or matching placebo for 2 weeks, then donepezil at 10 mg daily or matching placebo for 8 weeks; treatment was discontinued at 10 weeks, with an additional 4-week observation period.
• Verbal memory was assessed using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R). The primary outcome measure was verbal learning, evaluated through the HVLT-R total recall (ie, Total Trials 1-3) score.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with placebo, donepezil was associated with significantly greater improvements in verbal learning in both modified intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses (P = .034 and .036, respectively).
• Treatment-responder rates were significantly higher in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (42 vs 18%; P = .03), with donepezil responders showing significant improvements in delayed recall and processing speed.
• Although there were no serious adverse events in either group, treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly more common in the donepezil group vs placebo (46% vs 8%; P < .001). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.
• Diarrhea and nausea were significantly more common in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (Fisher’s exact test: diarrhea, P = .03; nausea, P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrates the efficacy of donepezil on severe, persistent verbal memory impairments after predominantly severe TBI, with significant benefit for a subset of persons with such injuries, as well as a relatively favorable safety and tolerability profile,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David B. Arciniegas, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. It was published online in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample with predominantly severe TBI requiring hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation. The sample characteristics limit the generalizability of the findings to persons with other severities of TBI, other types of memory impairments, or more complex neuropsychiatric presentations. The study population had an average of 14 years of education, making generalizability to individuals with lower education levels uncertain. Additionally, while measures of information processing speed and immediate auditory attention were included, specific measures of sustained or selective attention were not, making it difficult to rule out improvements in higher-level attention as potential contributors to the observed verbal memory performance improvements.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, with in-kind support from TIRR Memorial Hermann. Four authors disclosed various financial and professional affiliations, including advisory roles with pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, support from institutional awards, and involvement in programs funded by external organizations. One author served as the editor of The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, with an independent editor overseeing the review and publication process for this article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Donepezil was associated with improved verbal memory and enhanced recall and processing speed, compared with placebo, in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), with a favorable safety profile despite mild to moderate gastrointestinal side effects.

METHODOLOGY:

• A four-site, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 10-week clinical trial (MEMRI-TBI-D) was conducted between 2013 and 2019 to evaluate the efficacy of donepezil for verbal memory impairments following severe TBI.
• 75 adults (75% men; mean age, 37 years) with complicated mild, moderate, or severe nonpenetrating TBI at least 6 months prior to study participation were included and randomly assigned to receive donepezil (n = 37) or placebo (n = 38).
• Participants received 5 mg donepezil daily or matching placebo for 2 weeks, then donepezil at 10 mg daily or matching placebo for 8 weeks; treatment was discontinued at 10 weeks, with an additional 4-week observation period.
• Verbal memory was assessed using the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test–Revised (HVLT-R). The primary outcome measure was verbal learning, evaluated through the HVLT-R total recall (ie, Total Trials 1-3) score.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with placebo, donepezil was associated with significantly greater improvements in verbal learning in both modified intent-to-treat and per-protocol analyses (P = .034 and .036, respectively).
• Treatment-responder rates were significantly higher in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (42 vs 18%; P = .03), with donepezil responders showing significant improvements in delayed recall and processing speed.
• Although there were no serious adverse events in either group, treatment-emergent adverse events were significantly more common in the donepezil group vs placebo (46% vs 8%; P < .001). No serious adverse events occurred in either group.
• Diarrhea and nausea were significantly more common in the donepezil group than in the placebo group (Fisher’s exact test: diarrhea, P = .03; nausea, P = .01).

IN PRACTICE:

“This study demonstrates the efficacy of donepezil on severe, persistent verbal memory impairments after predominantly severe TBI, with significant benefit for a subset of persons with such injuries, as well as a relatively favorable safety and tolerability profile,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by David B. Arciniegas, MD, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. It was published online in The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included a relatively small sample with predominantly severe TBI requiring hospitalization and inpatient rehabilitation. The sample characteristics limit the generalizability of the findings to persons with other severities of TBI, other types of memory impairments, or more complex neuropsychiatric presentations. The study population had an average of 14 years of education, making generalizability to individuals with lower education levels uncertain. Additionally, while measures of information processing speed and immediate auditory attention were included, specific measures of sustained or selective attention were not, making it difficult to rule out improvements in higher-level attention as potential contributors to the observed verbal memory performance improvements.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research, with in-kind support from TIRR Memorial Hermann. Four authors disclosed various financial and professional affiliations, including advisory roles with pharmaceutical and diagnostic companies, support from institutional awards, and involvement in programs funded by external organizations. One author served as the editor of The Journal of Neuropsychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, with an independent editor overseeing the review and publication process for this article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including artificial intelligence, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

About one third of US adults aged 50-80 years report feeling lonely and socially isolated, a new study of data from 2018-2024 shows. While the levels have returned to the prepandemic range, investigators say the findings suggest clinicians should screen for loneliness and isolation.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a nationally representative survey of US adults aged 50-80 years through the University of Michigan National Poll on Healthy Aging at six timepoints between 2018 and 2024.
• Data collection involved online surveys conducted using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel from 2018 to 2021, transitioning to online and phone surveys conducted using the National Opinion Research Center AmeriSpeak panel from 2022 to 2024.
• Sample sizes ranged between 2051 and 2576 respondents, with completion rates ranging from 61% to 78% across the survey periods.

TAKEAWAY:

• Loneliness rates among adults aged 50-80 years showed notable fluctuation, starting at 34% (95% CI, 31.7%-36.2%) in 2018, rising to 41% (95% CI, 39.1%-43.7%) in 2020, and returning to 33% (95% CI, 31.7%-35.1%) by 2024.
• Social isolation showed a similar pattern in the study group, starting at 27% (95% CI, 24.5%-28.8%) in 2018, peaking at 56% (95% CI, 53.4%-58.1%) in 2020, and declining to 29% (95% CI, 27.5%-30.9%) by 2024.
• Higher loneliness and social isolation rates were frequently reported among individuals who did not work, lived alone, had lower household incomes, and had self-reported fair and poor physical and mental health than those who reported excellent, very good, or good health.

IN PRACTICE:

The findings suggest that “much like routinely asking about diet and exercise, clinicians should consider screening older adults for loneliness and social isolation and connect them with appropriate resources,” the investigators wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Preeti N. Malani, MD, MSJ, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. It was published online on December 9 in JAMA.

LIMITATIONS:

The study was limited by possible recall bias, reliance on self-reported data, lack of longitudinal results, and differences in survey timing, panels, and question framing across years. The findings may not have been applicable to excluded groups such as nursing home residents or individuals aged > 80 years, which limited their generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by AARP and Michigan Medicine and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, and Health Systems Research. One author reported receiving consulting fees and honoraria from various organizations. Details are provided in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Older adults with major depressive disorder (MDD) exhibit riskier driving behaviors, compared with their nondepressed peers, including hard braking, cornering, and unpredictable driving patterns, new research showed.

Data for the study came from commercial vehicle data trackers installed in participants’ vehicles. After about a year of follow-up, the investigators found that MDD was associated with an increase in the amount and severity of risking driving, even after they controlled for antidepressant use.

Late-life depression often goes undiagnosed, and the new findings highlight the importance of routine depression screening and targeted interventions to ensure driving safety among older adults, the study team said.

“By using longitudinal, real-world driving data rather than controlled settings or self-reports, the study provides robust evidence of how MDD influences driving behaviors in day-to-day contexts,” first author Ganesh M. Babulal, PhD, OTD, with the Department of Neurology, Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, Missouri, said in an interview.

“By analyzing the influence of antidepressant use and overall medication load, the study disentangles the effects of MDD from those of driver-impairing medications, further clarifying the unique contributions of depression to driving behaviors,” Babulal noted.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Road Risks 

As the number of older adults grows, safe driving practices in this age group become increasingly crucial. By 2050, one quarter of drivers in the United States will be older than 65 years. MDD affects about 8% of US adults and is linked to cognitive impairments that may compromise driving safety.

Prior studies revealed a link between depression and increased car crash risk, regardless of age. And earlier research by Babulal and colleagues showed that older adults with depression were three times more likely to receive a marginal or failing score on a standardized road test.

To further study the issue, Babulal and colleagues examined the impact of MDD on naturalistic driving behaviors among older adults using longitudinal data.

Participants were recruited from the Driving Real-World In-Vehicle Evaluation System Project, where their daily driving behaviors were recorded using commercial vehicle data loggers installed in their personal vehicles.

The cohort included 85 adults with MDD (mean age, 69 years; 71% women) and 310 adults without MDD (mean age, 70 years; 49% women). The majority of participants in both groups were non-Hispanic White individuals.

Based on intercepts, adults with MDD had a propensity toward riskier driving habits with a higher frequency of speeding events and spending more time on the road than those without MDD, they found.

During a mean of 1.1 years of follow-up, compared with older adults without MDD, those with MDD exhibited significantly more hard braking (P < .001) and hard cornering events per trip (P = .04) over time. They also traveled farther from home and visited more unique destinations (P < .001 for both).

Over time, older adults also displayed increased entropy in driving patterns (P < .001), indicated less predictable driving routes.

“Driving unpredictability, as evidenced by increased random entropy, highlights the unique challenges posed by MDD in maintaining safe driving practices,” the researchers wrote.

Adjustment for antidepressant use, which could impair driving, or total medication burden did not change the findings, suggesting MDD independently affects driving.

“Most importantly, our findings demonstrate that MDD — a common and treatable illness in older adults — was associated with an increase in both the amount and magnitude of risky driving behaviors over time,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers noted that the study did not account for changes in depression severity over time and other psychiatric conditions co-occurring with MDD were not adjusted for. Also, situational factors like weather or traffic conditions were not assessed.

 

Clear Clinical Implications

There is a “pressing need” for targeted interventions to manage and mitigate the driving risks associated with late-life depression, the researchers wrote.

“The study emphasizes the need for interventions tailored to the mental health and driving behaviors of older adults. These could include cognitive retraining, driver rehabilitation programs, and routine depression screening to enhance road safety and preserve independence,” Babulal said.

“Encouraging older adults with MDD to self-regulate their driving habits (eg, avoiding night driving or high-traffic situations) and educating them about potential driving challenges related to their condition can enhance safety,” he added.

Commenting on this study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, said it “adds nuance to our understanding of how depression can impact driving among older adults.

“While the connection between depression and a higher incident of crashes is known, this study demonstrates an association with riskier driving behaviors such as speeding,” Vahia said. “It highlights the importance of clinicians proactively initiating discussion of driving and safety when working with older adults with depressive symptoms.”

This work was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Institute on Aging. Babulal had no relevant disclosures. Vahia had served as a consultant for Otsuka.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A widely accepted assumption in the addiction field is that neuroanatomical changes observed in young people who use alcohol or other substances are largely the consequence of exposure to these substances.

But a new study suggests that neuroanatomical features in children, including greater whole brain and cortical volumes, are evident before exposure to any substances.

The investigators, led by Alex P. Miller, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, noted that the findings add to a growing body of work that suggests individual brain structure, along with environmental exposure and genetic risk, may influence risk for substance use disorder. 

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Neuroanatomy a Predisposing Risk Factor?

Earlier research showed that substance use is associated with lower gray matter volume, thinner cortex, and less white matter integrity. While it has been widely thought that these changes were induced by the use of alcohol or illicit drugs, recent longitudinal and genetic studies suggest that the neuroanatomical changes may also be predisposing risk factors for substance use.

To better understand the issue, investigators analyzed data on 9804 children (mean baseline age, 9.9 years; 53% men; 76% White) at 22 US sites enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study that’s examining brain and behavioral development from middle childhood to young adulthood.

The researchers collected information on the use of alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and other illicit substances from in-person interviews at baseline and years 1, 2, and 3, as well as interim phone interviews at 6, 18, and 30 months. MRI scans provided extensive brain structural data, including global and regional cortical volume, thickness, surface area, sulcal depth, and subcortical volume.

Of the total, 3460 participants (35%) initiated substance use before age 15, with 90% reporting alcohol use initiation. There was considerable overlap between initiation of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis.

The researchers tested whether baseline neuroanatomical variability was associated with any substance use initiation before or up to 3 years following initial neuroimaging scans. Study covariates included baseline age, sex, pubertal status, familial relationship (eg, sibling or twin), and prenatal substance exposures. Researchers didn’t control for sociodemographic characteristics as these could influence associations.

 

Significant Brain Differences

Compared with no substance use initiation, any substance use initiation was associated with larger global neuroanatomical indices, including whole brain (beta = 0.05; P = 2.80 × 10^–8), total intracranial (beta = 0.04; P = 3.49 × 10⁻⁶), cortical (beta = 0.05; P = 4.31 × 10^–8), and subcortical volumes (beta = 0.05; P = 4.39 × 10^–8), as well as greater total cortical surface area (beta = 0.04; P = 6.05 × 10^–7).

The direction of associations between cortical thickness and substance use initiation was regionally specific; any substance use initiation was characterized by thinner cortex in all frontal regions (eg, rostral middle frontal gyrus, beta = −0.03; P = 6.99 × 10^–6), but thicker cortex in all other lobes. It was also associated with larger regional brain volumes, deeper regional sulci, and differences in regional cortical surface area.

The authors noted total cortical thickness peaks at age 1.7 years and steadily declines throughout life. By contrast, subcortical volumes peak at 14.4 years of age and generally remain stable before steep later life declines.

Secondary analyses compared initiation of the three most commonly used substances in early adolescence (alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis) with no substance use.

Findings for alcohol largely mirrored those for any substance use. However, the study uncovered additional significant associations, including greater left lateral occipital volume and bilateral para-hippocampal gyri cortical thickness and less bilateral superior frontal gyri cortical thickness.

Nicotine use was associated with lower right superior frontal gyrus volume and deeper left lateral orbitofrontal cortex sulci. And cannabis use was associated with thinner left precentral gyrus and lower right inferior parietal gyrus and right caudate volumes.

The authors noted results for nicotine and cannabis may not have had adequate statistical power, and small effects suggest these findings aren’t clinically informative for individuals. However, they wrote, “They do inform and challenge current theoretical models of addiction.”

 

Associations Precede Substance Use

A post hoc analysis further challenges current models of addiction. When researchers looked only at the 1203 youth who initiated substance use after the baseline neuroimaging session, they found most associations preceded substance use.

“That regional associations may precede substance use initiation, including less cortical thickness in the right rostral middle frontal gyrus, challenges predominant interpretations that these associations arise largely due to neurotoxic consequences of exposure and increases the plausibility that these features may, at least partially, reflect markers of predispositional risk,” wrote the authors.

A study limitation was that unmeasured confounders and undetected systemic differences in missing data may have influenced associations. Sociodemographic, environmental, and genetic variables that were not included as covariates are likely associated with both neuroanatomical variability and substance use initiation and may moderate associations between them, said the authors.

The ABCD Study provides “a robust and large database of longitudinal data” that goes beyond previous neuroimaging research “to understand the bidirectional relationship between brain structure and substance use,” Miller said in a press release.

“The hope is that these types of studies, in conjunction with other data on environmental exposures and genetic risk, could help change how we think about the development of substance use disorders and inform more accurate models of addiction moving forward,” Miller said.

 

Reevaluating Causal Assumptions

In an accompanying editorial, Felix Pichardo, MA, and Sylia Wilson, PhD, from the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that it may be time to “reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction” and the mechanisms by which it develops, persists, and becomes harmful.

Neurotoxic effects of substances are central to current brain disease models of addiction, wrote Pichardo and Wilson. “Substance exposure is thought to affect cortical and subcortical regions that support interrelated systems, resulting in desensitization of reward-related processing, increased stress that prompts cravings, negative emotions when cravings are unsated, and weakening of cognitive control abilities that leads to repeated returns to use.”

The editorial writers praised the ABCD Study for its large sample size for providing a level of precision, statistical accuracy, and ability to identify both larger and smaller effects, which are critical for addiction research.

Unlike most addiction research that relies on cross-sectional designs, the current study used longitudinal assessments, which is another of its strengths, they noted.

“Longitudinal study designs like in the ABCD Study are fundamental for establishing temporal ordering across constructs, which is important because establishing temporal precedence is a key step in determining causal links and underlying mechanisms.”

The inclusion of several genetically informative components, such as the family study design, nested twin subsamples, and DNA collection, “allows researchers to extend beyond temporal precedence toward increased causal inference and identification of mechanisms,” they added.

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A widely accepted assumption in the addiction field is that neuroanatomical changes observed in young people who use alcohol or other substances are largely the consequence of exposure to these substances.

But a new study suggests that neuroanatomical features in children, including greater whole brain and cortical volumes, are evident before exposure to any substances.

The investigators, led by Alex P. Miller, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, noted that the findings add to a growing body of work that suggests individual brain structure, along with environmental exposure and genetic risk, may influence risk for substance use disorder. 

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Neuroanatomy a Predisposing Risk Factor?

Earlier research showed that substance use is associated with lower gray matter volume, thinner cortex, and less white matter integrity. While it has been widely thought that these changes were induced by the use of alcohol or illicit drugs, recent longitudinal and genetic studies suggest that the neuroanatomical changes may also be predisposing risk factors for substance use.

To better understand the issue, investigators analyzed data on 9804 children (mean baseline age, 9.9 years; 53% men; 76% White) at 22 US sites enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study that’s examining brain and behavioral development from middle childhood to young adulthood.

The researchers collected information on the use of alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and other illicit substances from in-person interviews at baseline and years 1, 2, and 3, as well as interim phone interviews at 6, 18, and 30 months. MRI scans provided extensive brain structural data, including global and regional cortical volume, thickness, surface area, sulcal depth, and subcortical volume.

Of the total, 3460 participants (35%) initiated substance use before age 15, with 90% reporting alcohol use initiation. There was considerable overlap between initiation of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis.

The researchers tested whether baseline neuroanatomical variability was associated with any substance use initiation before or up to 3 years following initial neuroimaging scans. Study covariates included baseline age, sex, pubertal status, familial relationship (eg, sibling or twin), and prenatal substance exposures. Researchers didn’t control for sociodemographic characteristics as these could influence associations.

 

Significant Brain Differences

Compared with no substance use initiation, any substance use initiation was associated with larger global neuroanatomical indices, including whole brain (beta = 0.05; P = 2.80 × 10^–8), total intracranial (beta = 0.04; P = 3.49 × 10⁻⁶), cortical (beta = 0.05; P = 4.31 × 10^–8), and subcortical volumes (beta = 0.05; P = 4.39 × 10^–8), as well as greater total cortical surface area (beta = 0.04; P = 6.05 × 10^–7).

The direction of associations between cortical thickness and substance use initiation was regionally specific; any substance use initiation was characterized by thinner cortex in all frontal regions (eg, rostral middle frontal gyrus, beta = −0.03; P = 6.99 × 10^–6), but thicker cortex in all other lobes. It was also associated with larger regional brain volumes, deeper regional sulci, and differences in regional cortical surface area.

The authors noted total cortical thickness peaks at age 1.7 years and steadily declines throughout life. By contrast, subcortical volumes peak at 14.4 years of age and generally remain stable before steep later life declines.

Secondary analyses compared initiation of the three most commonly used substances in early adolescence (alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis) with no substance use.

Findings for alcohol largely mirrored those for any substance use. However, the study uncovered additional significant associations, including greater left lateral occipital volume and bilateral para-hippocampal gyri cortical thickness and less bilateral superior frontal gyri cortical thickness.

Nicotine use was associated with lower right superior frontal gyrus volume and deeper left lateral orbitofrontal cortex sulci. And cannabis use was associated with thinner left precentral gyrus and lower right inferior parietal gyrus and right caudate volumes.

The authors noted results for nicotine and cannabis may not have had adequate statistical power, and small effects suggest these findings aren’t clinically informative for individuals. However, they wrote, “They do inform and challenge current theoretical models of addiction.”

 

Associations Precede Substance Use

A post hoc analysis further challenges current models of addiction. When researchers looked only at the 1203 youth who initiated substance use after the baseline neuroimaging session, they found most associations preceded substance use.

“That regional associations may precede substance use initiation, including less cortical thickness in the right rostral middle frontal gyrus, challenges predominant interpretations that these associations arise largely due to neurotoxic consequences of exposure and increases the plausibility that these features may, at least partially, reflect markers of predispositional risk,” wrote the authors.

A study limitation was that unmeasured confounders and undetected systemic differences in missing data may have influenced associations. Sociodemographic, environmental, and genetic variables that were not included as covariates are likely associated with both neuroanatomical variability and substance use initiation and may moderate associations between them, said the authors.

The ABCD Study provides “a robust and large database of longitudinal data” that goes beyond previous neuroimaging research “to understand the bidirectional relationship between brain structure and substance use,” Miller said in a press release.

“The hope is that these types of studies, in conjunction with other data on environmental exposures and genetic risk, could help change how we think about the development of substance use disorders and inform more accurate models of addiction moving forward,” Miller said.

 

Reevaluating Causal Assumptions

In an accompanying editorial, Felix Pichardo, MA, and Sylia Wilson, PhD, from the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that it may be time to “reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction” and the mechanisms by which it develops, persists, and becomes harmful.

Neurotoxic effects of substances are central to current brain disease models of addiction, wrote Pichardo and Wilson. “Substance exposure is thought to affect cortical and subcortical regions that support interrelated systems, resulting in desensitization of reward-related processing, increased stress that prompts cravings, negative emotions when cravings are unsated, and weakening of cognitive control abilities that leads to repeated returns to use.”

The editorial writers praised the ABCD Study for its large sample size for providing a level of precision, statistical accuracy, and ability to identify both larger and smaller effects, which are critical for addiction research.

Unlike most addiction research that relies on cross-sectional designs, the current study used longitudinal assessments, which is another of its strengths, they noted.

“Longitudinal study designs like in the ABCD Study are fundamental for establishing temporal ordering across constructs, which is important because establishing temporal precedence is a key step in determining causal links and underlying mechanisms.”

The inclusion of several genetically informative components, such as the family study design, nested twin subsamples, and DNA collection, “allows researchers to extend beyond temporal precedence toward increased causal inference and identification of mechanisms,” they added.

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A widely accepted assumption in the addiction field is that neuroanatomical changes observed in young people who use alcohol or other substances are largely the consequence of exposure to these substances.

But a new study suggests that neuroanatomical features in children, including greater whole brain and cortical volumes, are evident before exposure to any substances.

The investigators, led by Alex P. Miller, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, Indiana University, Indianapolis, noted that the findings add to a growing body of work that suggests individual brain structure, along with environmental exposure and genetic risk, may influence risk for substance use disorder. 

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

 

Neuroanatomy a Predisposing Risk Factor?

Earlier research showed that substance use is associated with lower gray matter volume, thinner cortex, and less white matter integrity. While it has been widely thought that these changes were induced by the use of alcohol or illicit drugs, recent longitudinal and genetic studies suggest that the neuroanatomical changes may also be predisposing risk factors for substance use.

To better understand the issue, investigators analyzed data on 9804 children (mean baseline age, 9.9 years; 53% men; 76% White) at 22 US sites enrolled in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study that’s examining brain and behavioral development from middle childhood to young adulthood.

The researchers collected information on the use of alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, and other illicit substances from in-person interviews at baseline and years 1, 2, and 3, as well as interim phone interviews at 6, 18, and 30 months. MRI scans provided extensive brain structural data, including global and regional cortical volume, thickness, surface area, sulcal depth, and subcortical volume.

Of the total, 3460 participants (35%) initiated substance use before age 15, with 90% reporting alcohol use initiation. There was considerable overlap between initiation of alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis.

The researchers tested whether baseline neuroanatomical variability was associated with any substance use initiation before or up to 3 years following initial neuroimaging scans. Study covariates included baseline age, sex, pubertal status, familial relationship (eg, sibling or twin), and prenatal substance exposures. Researchers didn’t control for sociodemographic characteristics as these could influence associations.

 

Significant Brain Differences

Compared with no substance use initiation, any substance use initiation was associated with larger global neuroanatomical indices, including whole brain (beta = 0.05; P = 2.80 × 10^–8), total intracranial (beta = 0.04; P = 3.49 × 10⁻⁶), cortical (beta = 0.05; P = 4.31 × 10^–8), and subcortical volumes (beta = 0.05; P = 4.39 × 10^–8), as well as greater total cortical surface area (beta = 0.04; P = 6.05 × 10^–7).

The direction of associations between cortical thickness and substance use initiation was regionally specific; any substance use initiation was characterized by thinner cortex in all frontal regions (eg, rostral middle frontal gyrus, beta = −0.03; P = 6.99 × 10^–6), but thicker cortex in all other lobes. It was also associated with larger regional brain volumes, deeper regional sulci, and differences in regional cortical surface area.

The authors noted total cortical thickness peaks at age 1.7 years and steadily declines throughout life. By contrast, subcortical volumes peak at 14.4 years of age and generally remain stable before steep later life declines.

Secondary analyses compared initiation of the three most commonly used substances in early adolescence (alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis) with no substance use.

Findings for alcohol largely mirrored those for any substance use. However, the study uncovered additional significant associations, including greater left lateral occipital volume and bilateral para-hippocampal gyri cortical thickness and less bilateral superior frontal gyri cortical thickness.

Nicotine use was associated with lower right superior frontal gyrus volume and deeper left lateral orbitofrontal cortex sulci. And cannabis use was associated with thinner left precentral gyrus and lower right inferior parietal gyrus and right caudate volumes.

The authors noted results for nicotine and cannabis may not have had adequate statistical power, and small effects suggest these findings aren’t clinically informative for individuals. However, they wrote, “They do inform and challenge current theoretical models of addiction.”

 

Associations Precede Substance Use

A post hoc analysis further challenges current models of addiction. When researchers looked only at the 1203 youth who initiated substance use after the baseline neuroimaging session, they found most associations preceded substance use.

“That regional associations may precede substance use initiation, including less cortical thickness in the right rostral middle frontal gyrus, challenges predominant interpretations that these associations arise largely due to neurotoxic consequences of exposure and increases the plausibility that these features may, at least partially, reflect markers of predispositional risk,” wrote the authors.

A study limitation was that unmeasured confounders and undetected systemic differences in missing data may have influenced associations. Sociodemographic, environmental, and genetic variables that were not included as covariates are likely associated with both neuroanatomical variability and substance use initiation and may moderate associations between them, said the authors.

The ABCD Study provides “a robust and large database of longitudinal data” that goes beyond previous neuroimaging research “to understand the bidirectional relationship between brain structure and substance use,” Miller said in a press release.

“The hope is that these types of studies, in conjunction with other data on environmental exposures and genetic risk, could help change how we think about the development of substance use disorders and inform more accurate models of addiction moving forward,” Miller said.

 

Reevaluating Causal Assumptions

In an accompanying editorial, Felix Pichardo, MA, and Sylia Wilson, PhD, from the Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, suggested that it may be time to “reevaluate the causal assumptions that underlie brain disease models of addiction” and the mechanisms by which it develops, persists, and becomes harmful.

Neurotoxic effects of substances are central to current brain disease models of addiction, wrote Pichardo and Wilson. “Substance exposure is thought to affect cortical and subcortical regions that support interrelated systems, resulting in desensitization of reward-related processing, increased stress that prompts cravings, negative emotions when cravings are unsated, and weakening of cognitive control abilities that leads to repeated returns to use.”

The editorial writers praised the ABCD Study for its large sample size for providing a level of precision, statistical accuracy, and ability to identify both larger and smaller effects, which are critical for addiction research.

Unlike most addiction research that relies on cross-sectional designs, the current study used longitudinal assessments, which is another of its strengths, they noted.

“Longitudinal study designs like in the ABCD Study are fundamental for establishing temporal ordering across constructs, which is important because establishing temporal precedence is a key step in determining causal links and underlying mechanisms.”

The inclusion of several genetically informative components, such as the family study design, nested twin subsamples, and DNA collection, “allows researchers to extend beyond temporal precedence toward increased causal inference and identification of mechanisms,” they added.

The study received support from the National Institutes of Health. The study authors and editorial writers had no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What current events are keeping Americans up at night? The economy, gun violence, and hate crimes top the list, results from a newly released American Psychiatric Association (APA) survey showed.

Anxiety about international conflicts — namely, the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars — also remains high.

“While we like to stay informed, the news can also impact our mental health, and being mindful of that impact is important. If current events seem overwhelming it may be time to limit your news consumption,” APA CEO and Medical Director Marketa M. Wills, MD, MBD, said in a statement.

Survey results also revealed the election and the holidays were common sources of stress.

“Election stress is common, and it’s important to recognize that, as we’re spending more time with family around the holidays, we might need to have a strategy to manage our own mental health during these times,” Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“As with any difficult topic, we all have different levels of avoidance or desire to engage, and it’s okay to set boundaries based on past conversations with family. I think sometimes we get drawn into arguments that we don’t want to have or may not be productive for either side,” said Liu, who chairs the APA Council on Communications.

In line with trends throughout 2024, adults polled by the APA in November were most anxious about the economy (75%), gun violence (64%), and hate crimes (60%). The survey included 2200 US adults as part of the APA’s Healthy Minds monthly series.

Anxiety about international conflicts remained high in November at 57% — but was down from 65% in August.

Election anxiety remained high in mid-November but not as high as before the election. In August, 72% of Americans said they were anxious about the 2024 election. In November, just after the election, 50% reported anxiety over the election outcome.

“I think the anticipation of change can sometimes be worse than the change itself. So I think a lot of people are now taking the attitude of — let’s wait and see what actually happens,” said Liu.

Half the adults (50%) anticipate the same amount of stress as the 2023 holiday season, while almost one third expect more stress (28%), and one fourth anticipate less stress (23%).

When asked how the holidays generally affect their mental health, 38% said it has positive effects, and 21% said the opposite was true.

 

Anxiety About the Future

After a divisive election, most Americans were ready to avoid politics at holiday gatherings, results of a separate poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in late November showed.

That poll, which included 2000 US adults, showed that more than 7 in 10 (72%) said they wanted to avoid talking about politics with family and friends over the holidays.

In addition, nearly two in five adults (39%) reported they were stressed by the thought of politics being raised at holiday gatherings and would try to avoid family members they disagree with. Younger adults were significantly more likely than were their older counterparts to report they planned to avoid family over the holidays.

The future of the nation also weighs on the minds of many Americans.

Another poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in August prior to the 2024 US presidential election showed that 77% of respondents said the future of the nation was a significant source of stress for them.

In the postelection poll, more than one third of adults (35%) said they are more stressed about the future of the nation now than they were leading up to the election, and another third reported they are now less stressed (32%). A quarter of adults (24%) said their stress about the future of the nation was unchanged, and 9% said they were not stressed about the future of the nation then or now.

“There’s still clearly a lot of uncertainty, and there’s a lot of activity right now for the president-elect,” which can contribute to anxiety, C. Vaile Wright, PhD, psychologist, researcher and spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, told this news organization.

These data also show that many Americans have little or no trust in the government, with some wanting to leave the United States.

“It’s a reflection of the lack of strong leadership across the board in this country. We have a governmental system in place that does not seem to serve the people, but to serve corporations and maintenance of power. I think people are disillusioned with it and that creates a lack of trust and hopelessness,” Wright noted.

Liu and Wright reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What current events are keeping Americans up at night? The economy, gun violence, and hate crimes top the list, results from a newly released American Psychiatric Association (APA) survey showed.

Anxiety about international conflicts — namely, the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars — also remains high.

“While we like to stay informed, the news can also impact our mental health, and being mindful of that impact is important. If current events seem overwhelming it may be time to limit your news consumption,” APA CEO and Medical Director Marketa M. Wills, MD, MBD, said in a statement.

Survey results also revealed the election and the holidays were common sources of stress.

“Election stress is common, and it’s important to recognize that, as we’re spending more time with family around the holidays, we might need to have a strategy to manage our own mental health during these times,” Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“As with any difficult topic, we all have different levels of avoidance or desire to engage, and it’s okay to set boundaries based on past conversations with family. I think sometimes we get drawn into arguments that we don’t want to have or may not be productive for either side,” said Liu, who chairs the APA Council on Communications.

In line with trends throughout 2024, adults polled by the APA in November were most anxious about the economy (75%), gun violence (64%), and hate crimes (60%). The survey included 2200 US adults as part of the APA’s Healthy Minds monthly series.

Anxiety about international conflicts remained high in November at 57% — but was down from 65% in August.

Election anxiety remained high in mid-November but not as high as before the election. In August, 72% of Americans said they were anxious about the 2024 election. In November, just after the election, 50% reported anxiety over the election outcome.

“I think the anticipation of change can sometimes be worse than the change itself. So I think a lot of people are now taking the attitude of — let’s wait and see what actually happens,” said Liu.

Half the adults (50%) anticipate the same amount of stress as the 2023 holiday season, while almost one third expect more stress (28%), and one fourth anticipate less stress (23%).

When asked how the holidays generally affect their mental health, 38% said it has positive effects, and 21% said the opposite was true.

 

Anxiety About the Future

After a divisive election, most Americans were ready to avoid politics at holiday gatherings, results of a separate poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in late November showed.

That poll, which included 2000 US adults, showed that more than 7 in 10 (72%) said they wanted to avoid talking about politics with family and friends over the holidays.

In addition, nearly two in five adults (39%) reported they were stressed by the thought of politics being raised at holiday gatherings and would try to avoid family members they disagree with. Younger adults were significantly more likely than were their older counterparts to report they planned to avoid family over the holidays.

The future of the nation also weighs on the minds of many Americans.

Another poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in August prior to the 2024 US presidential election showed that 77% of respondents said the future of the nation was a significant source of stress for them.

In the postelection poll, more than one third of adults (35%) said they are more stressed about the future of the nation now than they were leading up to the election, and another third reported they are now less stressed (32%). A quarter of adults (24%) said their stress about the future of the nation was unchanged, and 9% said they were not stressed about the future of the nation then or now.

“There’s still clearly a lot of uncertainty, and there’s a lot of activity right now for the president-elect,” which can contribute to anxiety, C. Vaile Wright, PhD, psychologist, researcher and spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, told this news organization.

These data also show that many Americans have little or no trust in the government, with some wanting to leave the United States.

“It’s a reflection of the lack of strong leadership across the board in this country. We have a governmental system in place that does not seem to serve the people, but to serve corporations and maintenance of power. I think people are disillusioned with it and that creates a lack of trust and hopelessness,” Wright noted.

Liu and Wright reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What current events are keeping Americans up at night? The economy, gun violence, and hate crimes top the list, results from a newly released American Psychiatric Association (APA) survey showed.

Anxiety about international conflicts — namely, the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Hamas wars — also remains high.

“While we like to stay informed, the news can also impact our mental health, and being mindful of that impact is important. If current events seem overwhelming it may be time to limit your news consumption,” APA CEO and Medical Director Marketa M. Wills, MD, MBD, said in a statement.

Survey results also revealed the election and the holidays were common sources of stress.

“Election stress is common, and it’s important to recognize that, as we’re spending more time with family around the holidays, we might need to have a strategy to manage our own mental health during these times,” Howard Liu, MD, MBA, chair of the Department of Psychiatry, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, told this news organization.

“As with any difficult topic, we all have different levels of avoidance or desire to engage, and it’s okay to set boundaries based on past conversations with family. I think sometimes we get drawn into arguments that we don’t want to have or may not be productive for either side,” said Liu, who chairs the APA Council on Communications.

In line with trends throughout 2024, adults polled by the APA in November were most anxious about the economy (75%), gun violence (64%), and hate crimes (60%). The survey included 2200 US adults as part of the APA’s Healthy Minds monthly series.

Anxiety about international conflicts remained high in November at 57% — but was down from 65% in August.

Election anxiety remained high in mid-November but not as high as before the election. In August, 72% of Americans said they were anxious about the 2024 election. In November, just after the election, 50% reported anxiety over the election outcome.

“I think the anticipation of change can sometimes be worse than the change itself. So I think a lot of people are now taking the attitude of — let’s wait and see what actually happens,” said Liu.

Half the adults (50%) anticipate the same amount of stress as the 2023 holiday season, while almost one third expect more stress (28%), and one fourth anticipate less stress (23%).

When asked how the holidays generally affect their mental health, 38% said it has positive effects, and 21% said the opposite was true.

 

Anxiety About the Future

After a divisive election, most Americans were ready to avoid politics at holiday gatherings, results of a separate poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in late November showed.

That poll, which included 2000 US adults, showed that more than 7 in 10 (72%) said they wanted to avoid talking about politics with family and friends over the holidays.

In addition, nearly two in five adults (39%) reported they were stressed by the thought of politics being raised at holiday gatherings and would try to avoid family members they disagree with. Younger adults were significantly more likely than were their older counterparts to report they planned to avoid family over the holidays.

The future of the nation also weighs on the minds of many Americans.

Another poll conducted by the American Psychological Association in August prior to the 2024 US presidential election showed that 77% of respondents said the future of the nation was a significant source of stress for them.

In the postelection poll, more than one third of adults (35%) said they are more stressed about the future of the nation now than they were leading up to the election, and another third reported they are now less stressed (32%). A quarter of adults (24%) said their stress about the future of the nation was unchanged, and 9% said they were not stressed about the future of the nation then or now.

“There’s still clearly a lot of uncertainty, and there’s a lot of activity right now for the president-elect,” which can contribute to anxiety, C. Vaile Wright, PhD, psychologist, researcher and spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, told this news organization.

These data also show that many Americans have little or no trust in the government, with some wanting to leave the United States.

“It’s a reflection of the lack of strong leadership across the board in this country. We have a governmental system in place that does not seem to serve the people, but to serve corporations and maintenance of power. I think people are disillusioned with it and that creates a lack of trust and hopelessness,” Wright noted.

Liu and Wright reported no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.