Clinical Psychiatry News

NEW ORLEANS – Intravenous (IV) ketamine is effective for geriatric patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), and the response rate was similar to that observed in younger adult patients, two new studies suggest.

“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.

The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.

“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Nasal vs. IV administration

Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.

In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.

A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.

In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.

To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.

Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.

Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.

The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).

“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.

Open-label trial results

In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.

The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.

After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.

Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.

These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.

The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.

In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.

Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.

Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.

“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.

“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”

Unsettling for some older patients

George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.

“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”

However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.

“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.

The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Intravenous (IV) ketamine is effective for geriatric patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), and the response rate was similar to that observed in younger adult patients, two new studies suggest.

“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.

The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.

“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Nasal vs. IV administration

Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.

In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.

A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.

In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.

To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.

Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.

Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.

The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).

“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.

Open-label trial results

In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.

The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.

After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.

Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.

These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.

The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.

In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.

Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.

Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.

“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.

“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”

Unsettling for some older patients

George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.

“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”

However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.

“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.

The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.

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

NEW ORLEANS – Intravenous (IV) ketamine is effective for geriatric patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD), and the response rate was similar to that observed in younger adult patients, two new studies suggest.

“These were patients with depression who had not responded even to intensive therapies or procedures, and we found that after a 6-week ketamine infusion regimen, there was no difference in the response to the treatment between the treatment-resistant geriatric and nongeriatric patients,” study investigator Jonathan Kim, of Emory University, Atlanta, the first author of one of two studies presented as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, said in an interview.

The findings are important because research on the effects of IV ketamine have not been well documented in geriatric patients, who have high rates of depression and TRD.

“There is a lack of data on IV ketamine in older adults with treatment-resistant depression, and there are some safety and tolerability concerns which may lead some older adults and their clinicians to be reluctant to pursue IV ketamine treatment,” study coinvestigator Hanadi Ajam Oughli, MD, a health sciences assistant clinical professor in the department of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences, University of California, Los Angeles, told this news organization.

Nasal vs. IV administration

Ketamine has traditionally been used as an anesthetic that blocks N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptors, Dr. Oughli and colleagues note.

In the treatment of TRD, an infusion of 0.5 mg/kg is typically administered over 40 minutes, producing a rapid antidepressant response. Recent research shows the drug reduces suicidality and improves mood and quality of life.

A more recent intranasal formulation of ketamine, esketamine, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for TRD in 2019, and some experts questioned its path to approval. In addition, the drug’s high cost and poor bioavailability in comparison with IV ketamine remains an issue, said Dr. Oughli.

In the previous TRANSFORM-3 study, a placebo-controlled randomized trial, there was no difference between esketamine, used in conjunction with an antidepressant, and placebo for geriatric patients.

To better understand the effects of IV ketamine in this patient population, Mr. Kim’s team conducted a retrospective chart review of 91 older patients with TRD who received IV ketamine treatment between October 2016 and August 2022.

Patients were divided into two groups – those older than 60 years (n = 36; 44% women; mean age, 68.86) and those younger than 60 (n = 55; 49% women; mean age, 41.05). Participants in each age group received six ketamine infusions over 6 weeks.

Results showed that with regard to depression severity, as assessed using Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) scores, 27.8% of patients in the geriatric group had a 50% or greater improvement, vs. 25.4% of those younger than 60.

The average BDI-II scores represented a significant improvement for both groups (P < .01), and the difference in scores between the groups was not statistically significant (P = .973).

“It is important to note that our study was conducted in a real-world clinical setting with a treatment-resistant population; other clinical studies may not have such sick patients in their trials. Additional studies are therefore warranted to establish further treatment guidelines in this area,” Mr. Kim said.

Open-label trial results

In the second study, Dr. Oughli and colleagues evaluated additional key outcomes in geriatric patients treated with IV ketamine as part of a larger open-label late-life trial on TRD.

The secondary analysis of the trial focused on 23 patients (mean age, 71.5 years) who had been initially treated with twice-a-week IV ketamine for 4 weeks.

After the first 4 weeks, patients who had experienced a partial response received an additional 4 weeks of once-weekly IV ketamine.

Overall, 48% of participants achieved a response, and 24% achieved remission of depressive symptoms following the first 4 weeks of twice-weekly treatment. This effect was maintained during the continuation phase of the study.

These findings are consistent with research in younger adults and demonstrate that twice-weekly infusions yield a more sustained antidepressant response than once-weekly infusions, the authors note.

The analysis also showed important increases in psychological well-being scores on the Scale for Suicidal Ideation, improved sleep quality as measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and overall psychological well-being as shown on the NIH Toolbox Positive Affect on happiness/contentment and the NIH Toolbox General Life Satisfaction scales.

In a previous analysis, published in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers also evaluated cognitive function using the NIH Cognitive Battery, which showed that geriatric patients with TRD had significant improvements in a composite of executive functioning and fluid cognition during the 4-week acute treatment period of twice-weekly IV ketamine infusions (Cohen’s d = 0.61) and that those improvements were sustained in the continuation phase of once-weekly infusions for 4 more weeks.

Those results are consistent with ketamine’s known potential procognitive effects in TRD, due to a putative antidepressant mechanism that rescues prefrontal circuit dysfunction through synaptogenesis, the researchers note.

Dr. Oughli said that in both analyses, patients tolerated ketamine well, and there were no serious adverse events.

“Adverse events, including hypertension, dissociated effects, and cravings, were rare and did not prevent the continued use of IV ketamine by older adults. We were able to use clonidine to help manage blood pressure changes seen during the infusions,” she noted.

“These findings are very promising and will need to be confirmed and extended in a larger randomized controlled trial.”

Unsettling for some older patients

George T. Grossberg, MD, director, geriatric psychiatry, Saint Louis University, noted that in his experience, IV ketamine treatment can be unsettling for some older geriatric patients, such as those in their 80s.

“Particularly with some of my older patients, the kind of psychotomimetic properties of ketamine and the out-of-body experiences [with the initial treatment] can be frightening,” he said. “They may be willing to try, but I’ve had more than one patient quit after one treatment because they became so frightened.”

However, the dire nature of TRD and failure to respond to multiple medications and combinations and other strategies may prompt patients to try ketamine as a measure with at least some potential, he noted.

“But there is a high bar for acceptance, especially on the part of older adults and their families, more than for younger people,” he said.

The investigators have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For older patients with resistant depression who fail to respond to antidepressant treatment, the addition of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) is superior to switching antidepressants, new research suggests.

“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.

“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.

The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Need for safe treatment options

Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.

To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).

After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.

The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.

Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.

The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.

A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).

Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.

Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.

“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
 

Practice changing?

In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”

However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.

Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole. 

With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.

“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression. 

“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.

“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”

While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.

“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said. 

The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For older patients with resistant depression who fail to respond to antidepressant treatment, the addition of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) is superior to switching antidepressants, new research suggests.

“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.

“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.

The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Need for safe treatment options

Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.

To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).

After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.

The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.

Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.

The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.

A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).

Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.

Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.

“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
 

Practice changing?

In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”

However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.

Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole. 

With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.

“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression. 

“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.

“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”

While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.

“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said. 

The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

NEW ORLEANS – For older patients with resistant depression who fail to respond to antidepressant treatment, the addition of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole (Abilify) is superior to switching antidepressants, new research suggests.

“We found that adding aripiprazole led to higher rates of depression remission and greater improvements in psychological well-being – which means how positive and satisfied patients felt – and this is good news,” study investigator Eric J. Lenze, MD, of the department of psychiatry, Washington University, St. Louis, said in a press statement.

“However, even that approach helped only about 30% of people in the study with treatment-resistant depression, underscoring the need to find and develop more effective treatments that can help more people,” he added.

The findings were presented here as part of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry annual meeting, and published concurrently in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 

Need for safe treatment options

Treatment-resistant depression is common in older patients, but switching medications or adding other agents can be challenging. With higher rates of comorbidity and polypharmacy, treatment decisions in this patient population are more complex compared with those involving younger patients.

To compare the benefits of augmentation vs. drug-switching strategies, the researchers conducted a multicenter, two-step trial involving 619 patients with an average baseline age of 69 who had failed to respond to two courses of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups. These included augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with either aripiprazole (n = 211) or the dopamine and norepinephrine–reuptake inhibitor bupropion (Wellbutrin, Zyban) (n = 206), or to taper off of their current antidepressant and switch to bupropion (n = 202).

After 10 weeks, patients’ psychological well-being was assessed via the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales. The researchers found patients in the aripiprazole and bupropion add-on groups improved by 4.83 points and 4.33 points, respectively. The bupropion switch group had a change of 2.04 points.

The difference between the aripiprazole augmentation group and the switch to bupropion group was significant (difference 2.79 points; P = .014). Other between-group differences were not significantly different.

Remission rates were similar in the aripiprazole and bupropion groups at 28.9% and 28.2%, respectively. The remission rate in the bupropion switch group was 19.3%.

The study results showed patients who received adjunctive bupropion had the highest fall rate at 0.55 falls per patient, vs. 0.33 falls per patient in the aripiprazole group, suggesting that among the three treatment options, adjunctive aripiprazole may be the best choice because of its superior efficacy and lower fall risk.

A total of 248 patients enrolled in the study showed no improvement and were further randomly assigned to receive adjunctive lithium (n = 127) or switch from current therapy to nortriptyline (n = 121).

Well-being scores in the lithium group improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points in the nortriptyline group. Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium group and 21.5% in the nortriptyline group. Fall rates were similar among the two groups.

Overall, “this large, randomized study demonstrated that adding aripiprazole was a superior option for older adults with treatment-resistant depression,” Dr. Lenze told this news organization.

“Since neither lithium nor nortriptyline were promising against treatment-resistant depression in older adults, those medications are unlikely to be helpful in most cases,” he added.
 

Practice changing?

In an accompanying editorial, Gemma Lewis, PhD, and Glyn Lewis, PhD, division of psychiatry, University of College London, noted the findings “support aripiprazole augmentation as a strategy for treatment-resistant depression in older persons, largely because of the lower risk of falls than with bupropion augmentation.”

However, “in clinical practice, [it] would be important to tailor treatment in light of potential adverse effects and the preferences of the patient,” they added.

Akathisia, for instance, is a common side effect of aripiprazole, shown in one recent trial to affect 11% of the patients. In addition, weight gain, though typically lower than seen with other antipsychotics, is a consideration with aripiprazole. 

With respect to fall risk, they noted that bupropion was largely used in relatively high doses of 300 mg and 450 mg, despite some recent research showing little clinical benefit from increasing antidepressant doses above minimum recommendations.

“It is possible that smaller doses of bupropion than those used in the current trial would retain effectiveness while minimizing adverse effects such as falls,” the editorialists noted.

Commenting on the study, Jennifer R. Gatchel, MD, PhD, assistant psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital/McLean Hospital and assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said the findings have high clinical significance in the treatment of geriatric depression. 

“These results are of great impact for clinicians managing older adults with treatment-resistant depression. They provide some of the first evidence of safety and efficacy of augmentation with aripiprazole as a strategy in clinical management of older adults who fail to initially respond to treatment,” said Dr. Gatchel, who was not associated with this research.

“Of particular significance, efficacy here is based on patient-centered outcomes and psychological well-being as a primary effectiveness outcome, which could translate into strengthened physician-patient alliance.”

While adjunctive aripiprazole is not necessarily a first-line strategy when older adults fail to respond to antidepressants, there is a lack of data on the risks and benefits of any other antipsychotic medications, she noted.

“Thus, this is evidence that will impact clinical practice and hopefully contribute to reduced societal burden of depression in older adults and the morbidity and mortality associated with it,” Dr. Gatchel said. 

The study received support from a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (TRD-1511-33321). Dr. Lenze received additional support from the Taylor Family Institute for Innovative Psychiatric Research at Washington University School of Medicine, as well as the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences grant (UL1TR002345) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Gatchel reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel study provides strong evidence supporting the adoption of a healthy diet to protect the aging brain. In a cohort of deceased older adults, those who had adhered to the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) and Mediterranean diets for nearly a decade before death had less global Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, primarily less beta-amyloid, at autopsy.

Those who most closely followed these diets had almost 40% lower odds of having an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis at death. The findings offer one mechanism by which healthy diets protect cognition.

“While our research doesn’t prove that a healthy diet resulted in fewer brain deposits of amyloid plaques ... we know there is a relationship, and following the MIND and Mediterranean diets may be one way that people can improve their brain health and protect cognition as they age,” study investigator Puja Agarwal, PhD, of RUSH University Medical Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Green leafy veggies key

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died of cancer in 2020 at age 64.

Although similar, the Mediterranean diet recommends vegetables, fruit, and three or more servings of fish per week, whereas the MIND diet prioritizes green leafy vegetables, such as spinach, kale, and collard greens, along with other vegetables. The MIND diet also prioritizes berries over other fruit and recommends one or more servings of fish per week. Both diets recommend small amounts of wine.

The current study focused on 581 older adults who died while participating in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). All participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations and brain autopsy after death.

Participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires beginning at a mean age of 84. The mean age at death was 91. Mean follow-up was 6.8 years.

Around the time of death, 224 participants (39%) had a diagnosis of clinical dementia, and 383 participants (66%) had a pathologic Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis at time of death.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to investigate the MIND and Mediterranean diets and dietary components associated with Alzheimer’s disease pathology. They controlled for age at death, sex, education, APO-epsilon 4 status, and total calories.

Overall, both diets were significantly associated with lower global Alzheimer’s disease pathology (MIND: beta = –0.022, P = .034; and Mediterranean: beta = –0.007, P = .039) – specifically, with less beta-amyloid (MIND: beta = –0.068, P = .050; and Mediterranean: beta = –0.040, P = .004).

The findings persisted when the analysis was further adjusted for physical activity, smoking, and vascular disease burden and when participants with mild cognitive impairment or dementia at the baseline dietary assessment were excluded.

Individuals who most closely followed the Mediterranean diet had average beta-amyloid load similar to being 18 years younger than peers with the lowest adherence. And those who most closely followed the MIND diet had average beta-amyloid amounts similar to being 12 years younger than those with the lowest adherence.

A MIND diet score 1 point higher corresponded to typical plaque deposition of participants who are 4.25 years younger in age.

Regarding individual dietary components, those who ate seven or more servings of green leafy vegetables weekly had less global Alzheimer’s disease pathology than peers who ate one or fewer (beta = –0.115, P = .0038). Those who ate seven or more servings per week had plaque amounts in their brains corresponding to being almost 19 years younger in comparison with those who ate the fewest servings per week.

“Our finding that eating more green leafy vegetables is in itself associated with fewer signs of Alzheimer’s disease in the brain is intriguing enough for people to consider adding more of these vegetables to their diet,” Dr. Agarwal said in the news release.

Previous data from the MAP cohort showed that adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.
 

Novel study, intriguing results

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations with the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that a number of studies have linked overall nutrition – especially a balanced diet low in saturated fats and sugar and high in vegetables – with brain health, including cognition, as one ages.

This new study “takes what we know about the link between nutrition and risk for cognitive decline a step further by looking at the specific brain changes that occur in Alzheimer’s disease. The study found an association of certain nutrition behaviors with less of these Alzheimer’s brain changes,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“This is intriguing, and more research is needed to test via an intervention if healthy dietary behaviors can modify the presence of Alzheimer’s brain changes and reduce risk of cognitive decline.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to study how targeting known dementia risk factors in combination may reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults. The MIND diet is being used in US POINTER.

“But while we work to find an exact ‘recipe’ for risk reduction, it’s important to eat a heart-healthy diet that incorporates nutrients that our bodies and brains need to be at their best,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel study provides strong evidence supporting the adoption of a healthy diet to protect the aging brain. In a cohort of deceased older adults, those who had adhered to the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) and Mediterranean diets for nearly a decade before death had less global Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, primarily less beta-amyloid, at autopsy.

Those who most closely followed these diets had almost 40% lower odds of having an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis at death. The findings offer one mechanism by which healthy diets protect cognition.

“While our research doesn’t prove that a healthy diet resulted in fewer brain deposits of amyloid plaques ... we know there is a relationship, and following the MIND and Mediterranean diets may be one way that people can improve their brain health and protect cognition as they age,” study investigator Puja Agarwal, PhD, of RUSH University Medical Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Green leafy veggies key

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died of cancer in 2020 at age 64.

Although similar, the Mediterranean diet recommends vegetables, fruit, and three or more servings of fish per week, whereas the MIND diet prioritizes green leafy vegetables, such as spinach, kale, and collard greens, along with other vegetables. The MIND diet also prioritizes berries over other fruit and recommends one or more servings of fish per week. Both diets recommend small amounts of wine.

The current study focused on 581 older adults who died while participating in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). All participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations and brain autopsy after death.

Participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires beginning at a mean age of 84. The mean age at death was 91. Mean follow-up was 6.8 years.

Around the time of death, 224 participants (39%) had a diagnosis of clinical dementia, and 383 participants (66%) had a pathologic Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis at time of death.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to investigate the MIND and Mediterranean diets and dietary components associated with Alzheimer’s disease pathology. They controlled for age at death, sex, education, APO-epsilon 4 status, and total calories.

Overall, both diets were significantly associated with lower global Alzheimer’s disease pathology (MIND: beta = –0.022, P = .034; and Mediterranean: beta = –0.007, P = .039) – specifically, with less beta-amyloid (MIND: beta = –0.068, P = .050; and Mediterranean: beta = –0.040, P = .004).

The findings persisted when the analysis was further adjusted for physical activity, smoking, and vascular disease burden and when participants with mild cognitive impairment or dementia at the baseline dietary assessment were excluded.

Individuals who most closely followed the Mediterranean diet had average beta-amyloid load similar to being 18 years younger than peers with the lowest adherence. And those who most closely followed the MIND diet had average beta-amyloid amounts similar to being 12 years younger than those with the lowest adherence.

A MIND diet score 1 point higher corresponded to typical plaque deposition of participants who are 4.25 years younger in age.

Regarding individual dietary components, those who ate seven or more servings of green leafy vegetables weekly had less global Alzheimer’s disease pathology than peers who ate one or fewer (beta = –0.115, P = .0038). Those who ate seven or more servings per week had plaque amounts in their brains corresponding to being almost 19 years younger in comparison with those who ate the fewest servings per week.

“Our finding that eating more green leafy vegetables is in itself associated with fewer signs of Alzheimer’s disease in the brain is intriguing enough for people to consider adding more of these vegetables to their diet,” Dr. Agarwal said in the news release.

Previous data from the MAP cohort showed that adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.
 

Novel study, intriguing results

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations with the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that a number of studies have linked overall nutrition – especially a balanced diet low in saturated fats and sugar and high in vegetables – with brain health, including cognition, as one ages.

This new study “takes what we know about the link between nutrition and risk for cognitive decline a step further by looking at the specific brain changes that occur in Alzheimer’s disease. The study found an association of certain nutrition behaviors with less of these Alzheimer’s brain changes,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“This is intriguing, and more research is needed to test via an intervention if healthy dietary behaviors can modify the presence of Alzheimer’s brain changes and reduce risk of cognitive decline.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to study how targeting known dementia risk factors in combination may reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults. The MIND diet is being used in US POINTER.

“But while we work to find an exact ‘recipe’ for risk reduction, it’s important to eat a heart-healthy diet that incorporates nutrients that our bodies and brains need to be at their best,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A novel study provides strong evidence supporting the adoption of a healthy diet to protect the aging brain. In a cohort of deceased older adults, those who had adhered to the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) and Mediterranean diets for nearly a decade before death had less global Alzheimer’s disease–related pathology, primarily less beta-amyloid, at autopsy.

Those who most closely followed these diets had almost 40% lower odds of having an Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis at death. The findings offer one mechanism by which healthy diets protect cognition.

“While our research doesn’t prove that a healthy diet resulted in fewer brain deposits of amyloid plaques ... we know there is a relationship, and following the MIND and Mediterranean diets may be one way that people can improve their brain health and protect cognition as they age,” study investigator Puja Agarwal, PhD, of RUSH University Medical Center in Chicago, said in a statement.

The study was published online in Neurology.
 

Green leafy veggies key

The MIND diet was pioneered by the late Martha Clare Morris, ScD, a Rush nutritional epidemiologist, who died of cancer in 2020 at age 64.

Although similar, the Mediterranean diet recommends vegetables, fruit, and three or more servings of fish per week, whereas the MIND diet prioritizes green leafy vegetables, such as spinach, kale, and collard greens, along with other vegetables. The MIND diet also prioritizes berries over other fruit and recommends one or more servings of fish per week. Both diets recommend small amounts of wine.

The current study focused on 581 older adults who died while participating in the Rush Memory and Aging Project (MAP). All participants agreed to undergo annual clinical evaluations and brain autopsy after death.

Participants completed annual food frequency questionnaires beginning at a mean age of 84. The mean age at death was 91. Mean follow-up was 6.8 years.

Around the time of death, 224 participants (39%) had a diagnosis of clinical dementia, and 383 participants (66%) had a pathologic Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis at time of death.

The researchers used a series of regression analyses to investigate the MIND and Mediterranean diets and dietary components associated with Alzheimer’s disease pathology. They controlled for age at death, sex, education, APO-epsilon 4 status, and total calories.

Overall, both diets were significantly associated with lower global Alzheimer’s disease pathology (MIND: beta = –0.022, P = .034; and Mediterranean: beta = –0.007, P = .039) – specifically, with less beta-amyloid (MIND: beta = –0.068, P = .050; and Mediterranean: beta = –0.040, P = .004).

The findings persisted when the analysis was further adjusted for physical activity, smoking, and vascular disease burden and when participants with mild cognitive impairment or dementia at the baseline dietary assessment were excluded.

Individuals who most closely followed the Mediterranean diet had average beta-amyloid load similar to being 18 years younger than peers with the lowest adherence. And those who most closely followed the MIND diet had average beta-amyloid amounts similar to being 12 years younger than those with the lowest adherence.

A MIND diet score 1 point higher corresponded to typical plaque deposition of participants who are 4.25 years younger in age.

Regarding individual dietary components, those who ate seven or more servings of green leafy vegetables weekly had less global Alzheimer’s disease pathology than peers who ate one or fewer (beta = –0.115, P = .0038). Those who ate seven or more servings per week had plaque amounts in their brains corresponding to being almost 19 years younger in comparison with those who ate the fewest servings per week.

“Our finding that eating more green leafy vegetables is in itself associated with fewer signs of Alzheimer’s disease in the brain is intriguing enough for people to consider adding more of these vegetables to their diet,” Dr. Agarwal said in the news release.

Previous data from the MAP cohort showed that adherence to the MIND diet can improve memory and thinking skills of older adults, even in the presence of Alzheimer’s disease pathology.
 

Novel study, intriguing results

Heather Snyder, PhD, vice president of medical and scientific relations with the Alzheimer’s Association, noted that a number of studies have linked overall nutrition – especially a balanced diet low in saturated fats and sugar and high in vegetables – with brain health, including cognition, as one ages.

This new study “takes what we know about the link between nutrition and risk for cognitive decline a step further by looking at the specific brain changes that occur in Alzheimer’s disease. The study found an association of certain nutrition behaviors with less of these Alzheimer’s brain changes,” said Dr. Snyder, who was not involved in the study.

“This is intriguing, and more research is needed to test via an intervention if healthy dietary behaviors can modify the presence of Alzheimer’s brain changes and reduce risk of cognitive decline.”

The Alzheimer’s Association is leading a 2-year clinical trial known as US POINTER to study how targeting known dementia risk factors in combination may reduce risk of cognitive decline in older adults. The MIND diet is being used in US POINTER.

“But while we work to find an exact ‘recipe’ for risk reduction, it’s important to eat a heart-healthy diet that incorporates nutrients that our bodies and brains need to be at their best,” Dr. Snyder said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Agarwal and Dr. Snyder have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older people with high levels of stress are nearly 40% more likely to have cognitive impairment than those with low stress, a new study shows.

Individuals with elevated stress levels also had higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. But even after controlling for those risk factors, stress remained an independent predictor of cognitive decline.

The national cohort study showed that the association between stress and cognition was similar between Black and White individuals and that those with controlled stress were less likely to have cognitive impairment than those with uncontrolled or new stress.

“We have known for a while that excess levels of stress can be harmful for the human body and the heart, but we are now adding more evidence that excess levels of stress can be harmful for cognition,” said lead investigator Ambar Kulshreshtha, MD, PhD, associate professor of family and preventive medicine and epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta. “We were able to see that regardless of race or gender, stress is bad.”

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Independent risk factor

For the study, investigators analyzed data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, a national population-based cohort of Black and White participants aged 45 years or older, sampled from the U.S. population.

Participants completed a questionnaire designed to evaluate stress levels when they were enrolled in the study between 2003 and 2007 and again about 11 years after enrollment.

Of the 24,448 participants (41.6% Black) in the study, 22.9% reported elevated stress levels.

Those with high stress were more likely to be younger, female, Black, smokers, and have a higher body mass index and less likely to have a college degree and to be physically active. They also had a lower family income and were more likely to have cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

Participants with elevated levels of perceived stress were 37% more likely to have poor cognition after adjustment for sociodemographic variables, cardiovascular risk factors, and depression (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.53).

There was no significant difference between Black and White participants.
 

Damaging consequences

Researchers also found a dose-response relationship, with the greatest cognitive decline found in people who reported high stress at both time points and those who had new stress at follow up (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.45), compared with those with resolved stress (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.81-1.32) or no stress (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.97).

A change in perceived stress by 1 unit was associated with 4% increased risk of cognitive impairment after adjusting for sociodemographic variables, CVD risk factors, lifestyle factors, and depressive symptoms (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06).

Although the study didn’t reveal the mechanisms that might link stress and cognition, it does point to stress as a potentially modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline, Dr. Kulshreshtha said.

“One in three of my patients have had to deal with extra levels of stress and anxiety over the past few years,” said Dr. Kulshreshtha. “We as clinicians are aware that stress can have damaging consequences to the heart and other organs, and when we see patients who have these complaints, especially elderly patients, we should spend some time asking people about their stress and how they are managing it.”
 

Additional screening

Gregory Day, MD, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said that the findings help fill a void in the research about stress and cognition.

“It’s a potentially important association that’s easy for us to miss in clinical practice,” said Dr. Day, who was not a part of the study. “It’s one of those things that we can all recognize impacts health, but we have very few large, well thought out studies that give us the data we need to inform its place in clinical decision-making.”

In addition to its large sample size, the overrepresentation of diverse populations is a strength of the study and a contribution to the field, Dr. Day said.

“One question they don’t directly ask is, is this association maybe due to some differences in stress? And the answer from the paper is probably not, because it looks like when we control for these things, we don’t see big differences incident risk factors between race,” he added.

The findings also point to the need for clinicians, especially primary care physicians, to screen patients for stress during routine examinations.

“Every visit is an opportunity to screen for risk factors that are going to set people up for future brain health,” Dr. Day said. “In addition to screening for all of these other risk factors for brain health, maybe it’s worth including some more global assessment of stress in a standard screener.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Kulshreshtha and Dr. Day report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older people with high levels of stress are nearly 40% more likely to have cognitive impairment than those with low stress, a new study shows.

Individuals with elevated stress levels also had higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. But even after controlling for those risk factors, stress remained an independent predictor of cognitive decline.

The national cohort study showed that the association between stress and cognition was similar between Black and White individuals and that those with controlled stress were less likely to have cognitive impairment than those with uncontrolled or new stress.

“We have known for a while that excess levels of stress can be harmful for the human body and the heart, but we are now adding more evidence that excess levels of stress can be harmful for cognition,” said lead investigator Ambar Kulshreshtha, MD, PhD, associate professor of family and preventive medicine and epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta. “We were able to see that regardless of race or gender, stress is bad.”

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Independent risk factor

For the study, investigators analyzed data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, a national population-based cohort of Black and White participants aged 45 years or older, sampled from the U.S. population.

Participants completed a questionnaire designed to evaluate stress levels when they were enrolled in the study between 2003 and 2007 and again about 11 years after enrollment.

Of the 24,448 participants (41.6% Black) in the study, 22.9% reported elevated stress levels.

Those with high stress were more likely to be younger, female, Black, smokers, and have a higher body mass index and less likely to have a college degree and to be physically active. They also had a lower family income and were more likely to have cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

Participants with elevated levels of perceived stress were 37% more likely to have poor cognition after adjustment for sociodemographic variables, cardiovascular risk factors, and depression (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.53).

There was no significant difference between Black and White participants.
 

Damaging consequences

Researchers also found a dose-response relationship, with the greatest cognitive decline found in people who reported high stress at both time points and those who had new stress at follow up (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.45), compared with those with resolved stress (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.81-1.32) or no stress (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.97).

A change in perceived stress by 1 unit was associated with 4% increased risk of cognitive impairment after adjusting for sociodemographic variables, CVD risk factors, lifestyle factors, and depressive symptoms (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06).

Although the study didn’t reveal the mechanisms that might link stress and cognition, it does point to stress as a potentially modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline, Dr. Kulshreshtha said.

“One in three of my patients have had to deal with extra levels of stress and anxiety over the past few years,” said Dr. Kulshreshtha. “We as clinicians are aware that stress can have damaging consequences to the heart and other organs, and when we see patients who have these complaints, especially elderly patients, we should spend some time asking people about their stress and how they are managing it.”
 

Additional screening

Gregory Day, MD, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said that the findings help fill a void in the research about stress and cognition.

“It’s a potentially important association that’s easy for us to miss in clinical practice,” said Dr. Day, who was not a part of the study. “It’s one of those things that we can all recognize impacts health, but we have very few large, well thought out studies that give us the data we need to inform its place in clinical decision-making.”

In addition to its large sample size, the overrepresentation of diverse populations is a strength of the study and a contribution to the field, Dr. Day said.

“One question they don’t directly ask is, is this association maybe due to some differences in stress? And the answer from the paper is probably not, because it looks like when we control for these things, we don’t see big differences incident risk factors between race,” he added.

The findings also point to the need for clinicians, especially primary care physicians, to screen patients for stress during routine examinations.

“Every visit is an opportunity to screen for risk factors that are going to set people up for future brain health,” Dr. Day said. “In addition to screening for all of these other risk factors for brain health, maybe it’s worth including some more global assessment of stress in a standard screener.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Kulshreshtha and Dr. Day report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Older people with high levels of stress are nearly 40% more likely to have cognitive impairment than those with low stress, a new study shows.

Individuals with elevated stress levels also had higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. But even after controlling for those risk factors, stress remained an independent predictor of cognitive decline.

The national cohort study showed that the association between stress and cognition was similar between Black and White individuals and that those with controlled stress were less likely to have cognitive impairment than those with uncontrolled or new stress.

“We have known for a while that excess levels of stress can be harmful for the human body and the heart, but we are now adding more evidence that excess levels of stress can be harmful for cognition,” said lead investigator Ambar Kulshreshtha, MD, PhD, associate professor of family and preventive medicine and epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta. “We were able to see that regardless of race or gender, stress is bad.”

The findings were published online  in JAMA Network Open.
 

Independent risk factor

For the study, investigators analyzed data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, a national population-based cohort of Black and White participants aged 45 years or older, sampled from the U.S. population.

Participants completed a questionnaire designed to evaluate stress levels when they were enrolled in the study between 2003 and 2007 and again about 11 years after enrollment.

Of the 24,448 participants (41.6% Black) in the study, 22.9% reported elevated stress levels.

Those with high stress were more likely to be younger, female, Black, smokers, and have a higher body mass index and less likely to have a college degree and to be physically active. They also had a lower family income and were more likely to have cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia.

Participants with elevated levels of perceived stress were 37% more likely to have poor cognition after adjustment for sociodemographic variables, cardiovascular risk factors, and depression (adjusted odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.53).

There was no significant difference between Black and White participants.
 

Damaging consequences

Researchers also found a dose-response relationship, with the greatest cognitive decline found in people who reported high stress at both time points and those who had new stress at follow up (aOR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.92-1.45), compared with those with resolved stress (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.81-1.32) or no stress (aOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.97).

A change in perceived stress by 1 unit was associated with 4% increased risk of cognitive impairment after adjusting for sociodemographic variables, CVD risk factors, lifestyle factors, and depressive symptoms (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06).

Although the study didn’t reveal the mechanisms that might link stress and cognition, it does point to stress as a potentially modifiable risk factor for cognitive decline, Dr. Kulshreshtha said.

“One in three of my patients have had to deal with extra levels of stress and anxiety over the past few years,” said Dr. Kulshreshtha. “We as clinicians are aware that stress can have damaging consequences to the heart and other organs, and when we see patients who have these complaints, especially elderly patients, we should spend some time asking people about their stress and how they are managing it.”
 

Additional screening

Gregory Day, MD, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Fla., said that the findings help fill a void in the research about stress and cognition.

“It’s a potentially important association that’s easy for us to miss in clinical practice,” said Dr. Day, who was not a part of the study. “It’s one of those things that we can all recognize impacts health, but we have very few large, well thought out studies that give us the data we need to inform its place in clinical decision-making.”

In addition to its large sample size, the overrepresentation of diverse populations is a strength of the study and a contribution to the field, Dr. Day said.

“One question they don’t directly ask is, is this association maybe due to some differences in stress? And the answer from the paper is probably not, because it looks like when we control for these things, we don’t see big differences incident risk factors between race,” he added.

The findings also point to the need for clinicians, especially primary care physicians, to screen patients for stress during routine examinations.

“Every visit is an opportunity to screen for risk factors that are going to set people up for future brain health,” Dr. Day said. “In addition to screening for all of these other risk factors for brain health, maybe it’s worth including some more global assessment of stress in a standard screener.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute on Aging. Dr. Kulshreshtha and Dr. Day report no relevant financial relationships.

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

It’s Oscars weekend, so for the second annual Meddy Awards – a very self-congratulatory and very tongue-in-cheek version of the Oscars – we celebrate outstanding medical performances and events in motion pictures throughout history. Without further ado (or comedy skits or musical numbers or extended tributes or commercials), the Meddys go to ...

Best depiction of emergency medicine’s rollercoaster

M*A*S*H (1970)

The original film, not the TV show, jumps from Frank Burns being hauled away in a straitjacket to a soldier’s spurting neck wound. Hawkeye Pierce calmly steps in and we see the entire sequence of him applying pressure, then stepping back to gown-and-glove (“it’s going to spurt a bit”), then jumping back in with arterial sutures, quipping, “Baby, we’re gonna see some stitchin’ like you never saw before.” After that, cocktail hour. Yes, medicine in Hollywood can be overdramatized and even inaccurate, but Robert Altman’s take on the novel by former U.S. Army surgeon Richard Hooker still stands tall for just how crazy emergency medicine can be.

Best ‘is there a doctor in the house?’ moment

Field of Dreams (1989)

When Ray Kinsella’s daughter gets knocked off the back of the bleachers, everything stops. No one knows what to do … except Doc “Moonlight” Graham, who gives up his life’s (and afterlife’s) dream to step off the field and save the girl from choking to death. Burt Lancaster, in his final movie role, embodies everything people wish a doctor to be: Calm, kind, and able to offer a quick, effective solution to a crisis. “Hey rookie! You were good.” Yes, he sure was.

Most unethical doctor

Elvis (2022)

No doctor wants to be remembered as the guy who killed Elvis. But that legacy clings to Dr. George Nichopoulos, Elvis’s personal physician in the 1970s. In Elvis, Dr. Nichopoulos, played by Tony Nixon, hovers in the background, enabling the King’s worsening addictions. Taking late-night calls for narcotics and injecting the unconscious star with stimulants, “unethical” is an understatement for the fictional “Dr. Nick.” The real Dr. Nichopoulos was acquitted of wrongdoing in Elvis’ death, although there is little doubt that the thousands of medication doses he prescribed played a role. When his license was finally revoked for overprescribing in the 1990s, the obliging doc reportedly claimed, “I cared too much.”

Best self-use of a defibrillator

Casino Royale (2006)

We expect backlash in the post-award press conference since James Bond technically only attempted to self-defibrillate in the passenger seat of his car. He never attached the device to the leads. Vesper Lynd had to pick up his slack and save the day. Also, supporters of fellow self-defibrillating nominee Jason Statham in Crank will no doubt raise a stink on Twitter. But we stand by our choice because it was such an, ahem, heart-stopper of a scene.

Best worst patient lying about an injury

Tár (2022)

Love it or hate it, few recent movies have been as polarizing as Tár. Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of a musical genius might be toweringly brilliant or outrageously offensive (or both) depending on whom you ask. But clearly the character has a loose relationship with facts. More than a few doctors might have raised an eyebrow had Lydia Tár appeared with injuries to her face, claiming to have been attacked in a mugging. In reality, Lydia tripped and fell while pursuing an attractive young cellist into a hazardous basement. Did she lie to protect her image, preserve her marriage, or – like many patients – avoid a lecture on unhealthy behavior? We pick D, all of the above.

Best therapy for a speech disorder

The King’s Speech (2010)

Public speaking might cause anxiety for many of us, but how about doing it in front of a global radio audience while wrestling with a speech disorder? Based on a true story, The King’s Speech revealed that terrifying experience for England’s King George VI. Enter Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush. Irreverent, unconventional, and untrained, the Australian pioneer in speech and language therapy uses a range of strategies – some of which are still used today – to help the royal find his voice. But when singing, shouting swear words, and provoking rage don’t do the trick, Mr. Logue turns to psychotherapy to unearth the childhood traumas at the root of the king’s disability. Experience, as Mr. Logue tells his patient, matters just as much as “letters after your name.”

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

Several years after xylazine first began appearing as an additive in illicit street drugs – and as its use spreads nationwide – the Food and Drug Administration says it will more closely monitor imports.

The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.

bankrx/Getty Images

It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.

The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”

FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”

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

Several years after xylazine first began appearing as an additive in illicit street drugs – and as its use spreads nationwide – the Food and Drug Administration says it will more closely monitor imports.

The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.

bankrx/Getty Images

It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.

The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”

FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”

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

Several years after xylazine first began appearing as an additive in illicit street drugs – and as its use spreads nationwide – the Food and Drug Administration says it will more closely monitor imports.

The agency issued an import alert, which gives it the power to detain raw ingredients or bulk finished product if the shipments are suspected to be in violation of the law. Xylazine was first approved by the FDA in 1972 as a sedative and analgesic for use only in animals.

bankrx/Getty Images

It is increasingly being detected and is usually mixed with fentanyl, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other illicit drugs. A January 2023 study by Nashville-based testing company Aegis Sciences found xylazine in 413 of about 60,000 urine samples and in 25 of 39 states that submitted tests. The vast majority of xylazine-positive samples also tested positive for fentanyl.

The FDA said it would continue to ensure the availability of xylazine for veterinary use, and the American Veterinary Medicine Association said in a statement that it “supports such efforts to combat illicit drug use.”

FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, MD, said in a statement that the agency “remains concerned about the increasing prevalence of xylazine mixed with illicit drugs, and this action is one part of broader efforts the agency is undertaking to address this issue.”

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

Two U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration proposals on how telehealth can be used going forward to prescribe controlled substances are drawing criticism from mental health and addiction treatment specialists.

The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.

Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.

The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.

“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.

Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.

“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”

The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.

The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.

A potential ‘telehealth cliff’

Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”

NYU Langone Health

Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”

Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.

“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.

American Telemedicine Association

“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.

The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.

But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.

DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”

Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”

The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.

Ketamine confusion

The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.

Lisa Harding

Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.

Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.

“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.

However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”

Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.

“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.

Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration proposals on how telehealth can be used going forward to prescribe controlled substances are drawing criticism from mental health and addiction treatment specialists.

The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.

Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.

The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.

“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.

Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.

“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”

The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.

The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.

A potential ‘telehealth cliff’

Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”

NYU Langone Health

Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”

Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.

“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.

American Telemedicine Association

“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.

The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.

But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.

DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”

Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”

The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.

Ketamine confusion

The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.

Lisa Harding

Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.

Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.

“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.

However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”

Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.

“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.

Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Two U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration proposals on how telehealth can be used going forward to prescribe controlled substances are drawing criticism from mental health and addiction treatment specialists.

The proposed rules – one for Schedule III-V substances, and the other for buprenorphine – are due to go into effect on May 11, when the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE), and temporary flexibilities, end.

Essentially, both proposals would allow providers to prescribe a 30-day supply of a controlled substance or buprenorphine, but then require a face-to-face meeting for patients to receive additional prescriptions.

The DEA says that the rules are aimed at preventing abuse and diversion of the substances, but clinicians claim they are creating unnecessary hurdles that will probably lead to some patients dropping out of treatment.

“We were happy to see that there is ongoing flexibility to be able to initiate buprenorphine through telehealth, but we were disappointed to see that the DEA set an arbitrary time frame, in this case, a 30-day time frame after which the patient would have to be seen in person before ongoing care with buprenorphine for opioid use disorder could be provided,” Brian Hurley, MD, MBA, the president-elect of the American Society of Addiction Medicine told this news organization.

Dr. Hurley agreed that it is best practice to see patients in person for ongoing care, but he noted they have many reasons why they might not be able to make it into an office every month.

“What this rule would do if instituted as written is prevent me from continuing care for patients unless I can get them in in person,” he said. “And while I’d make every effort as a clinician, it’s not always feasible to do so.”

The addiction specialist noted that only about 20% of Americans with opioid use disorder have access to medications for the disorder. “I would posit that untreated opioid use disorder is a bigger threat to public safety currently than the risk of diversion,” he said.

The DEA is also proposing to allow state laws to supersede its regulations, which concerns Dr. Hurley and other clinicians because some states are more restrictive. “Our position is that state laws that restrict access to medications for opioid use disorder through telehealth means are inconsistent with our policy recommendation. I certainly hope that the DEA hears our concerns and amends the proposal,” said Dr. Hurley.

A potential ‘telehealth cliff’

Shabana Khan, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee, said that “because of potential overlap with state rules that may be more stringent than these new regulations, APA is concerned that the proposed rules will create a telehealth cliff for those in most need of critical psychiatric and opioid use disorder treatment, particularly in communities where this specialty care is limited or nonexistent.”

NYU Langone Health

Dr. Khan noted that “clarification is necessary on how patients who started treatment during the PHE can continue treatment with a prescribing provider, if at all, through an in-person evaluation with a DEA-registered provider referral.”

Telehealth companies were also disappointed in the DEA proposals.

“The continuity of care for countless Americans will be severed, potentially leaving these patients to fall through the cracks of our health care system without access to needed medications,” said Kyle Zebley, the American Telemedicine Association’s senior vice president of public policy, in a statement.

American Telemedicine Association

“Requiring every patient who has initiated treatment via telemedicine during the pandemic to now visit a provider in person clearly falls on the side of being overly restrictive,” Mr. Zebley added.

The DEA is proposing to allow patients who have been receiving telehealth over the past 3 years to continue to do so for 180 days after the PHE ends.

But the American Telemedicine Association and others said that they still want to see a change in the proposal as written. “Our hope is that the DEA works with us to avoid unnecessary and inappropriate restrictions on the prescription of essential medications for these vulnerable and underserved populations,” Mr. Zebley said in the statement.

DEA Administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement that the agency believes that “the telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder,” and that the DEA “is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”

Rahul Gupta, MD, director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said in a statement that “This proposed rule builds on President Biden’s historic move to eliminate the X-waiver that prevented many prescribers from treating patients with buprenorphine.” He added, “Thanks to these changes, millions of Americans will be able to access the lifesaving care they need.”

The DEA estimated that there were 15.7 million prescriptions for buprenorphine in 2021 and that about 67,000 were for initial prescriptions.

Ketamine confusion

The rule on controlled substances has also caused some consternation, especially given that it does not differentiate between racemic ketamine and esketamine, said Lisa Marie Harding, MD, vice president of the board of the American Society of Ketamine Physicians, Psychotherapists & Practitioners.

Lisa Harding

Esketamine (Spravato) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration and, under a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy, can only be administered in FDA-monitored treatment facilities. Racemic ketamine is being prescribed – often for home use – with almost no regulatory oversight.

Dr. Harding, who is an approved Spravato provider and also administers intravenous ketamine in her practice, does not believe that ketamine should be used at home without supervision.

“I had a patient who had a very powerful dissociative experience in my office earlier this week,” Dr. Harding said in an interview. One of her staff asked what would happen if the patient had experienced that at home. “We don’t know. Nor do we want this to happen,” said Dr. Harding.

However, the DEA proposal would continue to allow for home use, at least initially. “If it’s open to interpretation, those people that prescribe ketamine for home use can use that leeway to then continue to do it,” she said. “That is not safe.”

Dr. Harding approves of the proposed DEA requirement for face-to-face visits. “It’s good patient care,” she said. But she wants the administration to adjust the rules to make it harder to offer home ketamine therapy.

“Lots of people are using racemic ketamine off-label for treating depression with success but doing it in treatment settings that are appropriate,” said Dr. Harding.

Dr. Hurley and Dr. Harding report no relevant financial relationships.

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

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on Feb. 21, 2023. This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Welcome. I’m Dr. Robert Glatter, medical adviser for Medscape Emergency Medicine. Joining me today is Gilberto Salazar, MD, an emergency physician at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, to discuss a new virtual reality tool to help health care providers deescalate workplace violence. Welcome, Dr. Salazar. It’s a pleasure to have you join us today.

Gilberto A. Salazar, MD: The pleasure is all mine, Dr. Glatter. Thank you so much for having me.

Dr. Glatter: This is such an important topic, as you can imagine. Workplace violence is affecting so many providers in hospital emergency departments but also throughout other parts of the hospital.

First, can you describe how the virtual reality (VR) program was designed that you developed and what type of situations it simulates?

Dr. Salazar: We worked in conjunction with the University of Texas at Dallas. They help people like me, subject matter experts in health care, to bring ideas to reality. I worked very closely with a group of engineers from their department in designing a module specifically designed to tackle, as you mentioned, one of our biggest threats in workplace violence.

We decided to bring in a series of competencies and proficiencies that we wanted to bring into the virtual reality space. In leveraging the technology and the expertise from UT Dallas, we were able to make that happen.

Dr. Glatter: I think it’s important to understand, in terms of virtual reality, what type of environment the program creates. Can you describe what a provider who puts the goggles on is experiencing? Do they feel anything? Is there technology that enables this?

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We were able to bring to reality a series of scenarios very common from what you and I see in the emergency department on a daily basis. We wanted to immerse a learner into that specific environment. We didn’t feel that a module or something on a computer or a slide set could really bring the reality of what it’s like to interact with a patient who may be escalating or may be aggressive.

UT Dallas

UT Southwestern Medical Center

We were able to create our own algorithm, but it’s not brand new. We’re just borrowing what we think is the best to create something that the majority of health care personnel are going to be able to relate to and be able to really be proficient at.

This includes things like active listening, bargaining, how to respond, where to put yourself in a situation, and the best possible situation to respond to a scenario, how to prevent things – how to get out of a chokehold, for example. We’re borrowing from several different disciplines and creating something that can be very concise and organized.

Dr. Glatter: Does this program that you’ve developed allow the provider to get feedback in the sense that when they’re in such a danger, their life could be at risk? For example, if they don’t remove themselves in a certain amount of time, this could be lethal.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, 100%. Probably the one thing that differentiates our project from any others is the ability to customize the experience so that a learner who is doing the things that we ask them to do in terms of safety and response is able to get out of a situation successfully within the environment. If they don’t, they get some kind of feedback.

Not to spoil the surprise here, but we’re going to be doing things like looking at decibel meters to see what the volume in the room is doing and how you’re managing the volume and the stimulation within the room. If you are able to maintain the decibel readings at a specific level, you’re going to succeed through the module. If you don’t, we keep the patient escalation going.

Dr. Glatter: There is a debrief built into this type of approach where, in other words, learning points are emphasized – where you could have done better and such.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. We are going to be able to get individualized data for each learner so that we can tailor the debrief to their own performance and be able to give them actionable items to work on. It’s a debrief that’s productive and individualized, and folks can walk away with something useful in the end.

Dr. Glatter: Are the data shared or confidential at present?

Dr. Salazar: At this very moment, the data are confidential. We are going to look at how to best use this. We’re hoping to eventually write this up and see how this information can be best used to train personnel.

Eventually, we may see that some of the advice that we’re giving is very common to most folks. Others may require some individualized type of feedback. That said, it remains to be seen, but right now, it’s confidential.

Dr. Glatter: Is this currently being implemented as part of your curriculum for emergency medicine residents?

Dr. Salazar: We’re going to study it first. We’re very excited to include our emergency medicine residents as one of our cohorts that’s going to be undergoing the module, and we’re going to be studying other forms of workplace violence mitigation strategies. We’re really excited about the possibility of this eventually becoming the standard of education for not only our emergency medicine residents, but also health care personnel all over the world.

Dr. Glatter: I’m glad you mentioned that, because obviously nurses, clerks in the department, and anyone who’s working in the department, for that matter, and who interfaces with patients really should undergo such training.

Dr. Salazar: Absolutely. The folks at intake, at check-in, and at kiosks. Do they go through a separate area for screening? You’re absolutely right. There are many folks who interface with patients and all of us are potential victims of workplace violence. We want to give our health care family the best opportunity to succeed in these situations.

Dr. Glatter:: Absolutely. Even EMS providers, being on the front lines and encountering patients in such situations, would benefit, in my opinion.

Dr. Salazar: Yes, absolutely. Behavioral health emergencies and organically induced altered mental status results in injury, both physical and mental, to EMS professionals as well, and there’s good evidence of that. I’ll be very glad to see this type of education make it out to our initial and continuing education efforts for EMS as well.

Dr. Glatter: I want to thank you. This has been very helpful. It’s such an important task that you’ve started to explore, and I look forward to follow-up on this. Again, thank you for your time.

Dr. Salazar: It was my pleasure. Thank you so much for having me.
 

Dr. Glatter is an attending physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, N.Y. He is an editorial adviser and hosts the Hot Topics in EM series on Medscape. He is also a medical contributor for Forbes. Dr. Salazar is a board-certified emergency physician and associate professor at UT Southwestern Medicine Center in Dallas. He is involved with the UTSW Emergency Medicine Education Program and serves as the medical director to teach both initial and continuing the emergency medicine education for emergency medical technicians and paramedics, which trains most of the Dallas Fire Rescue personnel and the vast majority for EMS providers in the Dallas County. In addition, he serves as an associate chief of service at Parkland’s emergency department, and liaison to surgical services. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

A once-daily oral stimulant medication for treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in individuals aged 6 years or older is safe and effective after 1 year of treatment, new research shows.

Results from a phase 3, multicenter dose optimization, open-label safety study of Azstarys (KemPharm) found that most treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mild to moderate.

“This data show that Azstarys remains safe and effective for the treatment of ADHD when given for up to a year,” lead investigator Ann Childress, MD, president of the Center for Psychiatry and Behavioral Medicine, Las Vegas, said in an interview.

The study was published online  in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology.

Safety at 1 year

The drug is a combination of extended-release serdexmethylphenidate (SDX), KemPharm’s prodrug of dexmethylphenidate (d-MPH), co-formulated with immediate-release d-MPH.

SDX is converted to d-MPH after it is absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. The d-MPH is released gradually throughout the day, providing quick symptom control with the d-MPH and extended control with SDX.

As reported by this news organization, Azstarys was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2021 on the basis of results from a laboratory classroom phase 3 trial, which showed significant improvement in ADHD symptoms, compared with placebo.

For this study, the second phase 3 trial of Azstarys, investigators analyzed data from 282 children aged 6-12 years in the United States, including 70 who participated in an earlier 1-month efficacy trial as well.

After screening and a 3-week dose-optimization phase for new participants, patients received once-daily treatment with doses of 26.1 mg/5.2 mg, 39.2 mg/7.8 mg, or 52.3 mg/10.4 mg of SDX/d-MPH.

After 1 year of treatment, 60.1% of participants reported at least one TEAE, the majority of which were moderate. Twelve patients reported severe TEAEs. Six children (2.5%) discontinued the study due to a TEAE during the treatment phase.

Investigators also measured growth and changes in sleep with the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire during the 12-month study. Sleep improved on most measures and the impact on growth was mild.

There were no life-threatening TEAEs and no deaths reported during the study.

The most common TEAEs during the treatment phase were decreased appetite, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, decreased weight, irritability, and increased weight.

Efficacy at 1 year

ADHD symptoms improved considerably after 1 month of treatment, with responses continuing at 1 year.

At baseline, participants’ mean ADHD Rating Scale-5 (ADHD-RS-5) score was 41.5. After 1 month of treatment, scores averaged 16.1, a decline of –25.3 (P < .001).

The mean score stabilized in the 12-15 range for the remainder of the study. After 1 year of treatment, ADHD symptoms had decreased approximately 70% from baseline.

Investigators found similar results in clinical severity. After 1 month of treatment, the average Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) scale score was 2.5, a decline of –2.2 (P < .0001).

CGI-S scale scores remained in the 2.2-2.4 range for the remainder of the study.

These results, combined with the results of the original classroom trial, suggest Azstarys may offer advantages over other ADHD drugs, Dr. Childress said.

“In the laboratory classroom trial, subjects taking Azstarys completed significantly more math problems than subjects taking placebo beginning at 30 minutes and up to 13 hours after dosing,” Dr. Childress said. “No other methylphenidate extended-release product currently marketed in the United States has a 13-hour duration of effect.”

‘Reassuring data’

Aditya Pawar, MD, a child and adolescent psychiatrist with the Kennedy Krieger Institute and an assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that the study suggests the drug may be a valuable addition to ADHD treatment options for pediatric patients.

“The study provides reassuring data on the safety of stimulants in patients without significant history of cardiac events or blood pressure changes, which are usual concerns among patients and clinicians despite the evidence supporting safety, said Dr. Pawar, who was not part of the study.

“Additionally, the 1-year data on efficacy and safety of a new stimulant medication is valuable for clinicians looking for sustained relief for their patients, despite the limitations of an open-label trial,” she added.

Overall, the safety data reported here are fairly consistent with the safety profile of other methylphenidates used for treating ADHD, Dr. Pawar said.

However, she noted, the study does have some limitations, including its open-label design and lack of blinding. The research also excluded children with autism, disruptive mood dysregulation disorders, and other common comorbidities of ADHD, which may limit the generalizability of the results.

“These comorbidities often require stimulants as a part of treatment and yet have a higher risk of side effects,” Dr. Pawar said. “Future studies with a broader population may be needed to better understand treatment effectiveness and potential risks.”

The study was funded by KemPharm. Dr. Childress serves as consultant for Aardvark, Arbor, Attentive, Cingulate, Ironshore, Neos Therapeutics, Neurocentria, Otsuka, Purdue, Rhodes, Sunovion, Tris Pharma, KemPharm, Supernus, Jazz, Corium, Tulex, and Lumos. Full disclosures are reported in the original article.

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

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.

NEW ORLEANS - The antipsychotic brexpiprazole effectively improves agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) with favorable tolerability, results of a phase 3 study suggest.

“In this phase 3 trial of patients with agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia, treatment with brexpiprazole 2 or 3 mg/day resulted in statistically significantly greater improvements in agitation versus placebo on the primary and key secondary endpoints,” said study investigator George Grossberg, MD, professor and director of the division of geriatric psychiatry, department of psychiatry & behavioral neuroscience, Saint Louis University.

Dr. Grossberg presented the findings as part of the annual meeting of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

Agitation common, distressing

With two previous studies also showing efficacy of brexpiprazole in AD-related agitation, Dr. Grossberg speculated that brexpiprazole will become the first drug to be approved for agitation in AD.

Agitation is one of the most common AD symptoms and is arguably the most distressing for patients and caregivers alike, Dr. Grossberg noted.

The drug was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

To investigate the drug at effective doses for AD-related agitation, the researchers conducted a phase 3 multicenter trial that included 345 patients with AD who met criteria for agitation and aggression.

Study participants had a mean Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score between 5 and 22 at screening and baseline and a mean Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) total score of about 79. A score above 45 is considered clinically significant agitation. Use of AD medications were permitted.

Patients had a mean age of 74 years and were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive treatment with brexpiprazole 2 mg (n = 75) or 3 mg (n = 153) per day, or placebo (n = 117).

The study’s primary endpoint was improvement as assessed by the CMAI. Over 12 weeks, participants in the brexpiprazole group experienced greater improvement in agitation, with a mean change of –22.6 with brexpiprazole vs. –17.3 with placebo (P = .0026).

Brexpiprazole was also associated with significantly greater improvement in the secondary outcome of change from baseline to week 12 in agitation severity, as assessed using the Clinical Global Impression-Severity of Illness (CGI-S) score (mean change, –1.20 with brexpiprazole vs. –0.93 with placebo; P = .0078).

Specifically, treatment with the drug resulted in improvements in three key subscales of agitation, including aggressive behavior, such as physically striking out (P < .01 vs. placebo); physically nonaggressive; and verbally agitated, such as screaming or cursing (both P < .05).

Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) associated with brexpiprazole vs. placebo included somnolence (3.5% vs. 0.9%), nasopharyngitis (3.1% vs. 1.7%), dizziness (2.7% vs. 1.7%), diarrhea (2.2% vs. 0.9%), urinary tract infection (2.2% vs. 0.9%), and asthenia (2.2% vs. 0.0%).

“Aside from headache, no other TEAEs had an incidence of more than 5% in the brexpiprazole (2 or 3 mg) group, or in either dose group,” Dr. Grossberg said. “Cognition also remained stable,” he added.

Boxed warnings

Adverse events commonly associated with brexpiprazole include weight change, extrapyramidal events, falls, cardiovascular events, and sedation. In the study, all occurred at an incidence of less than 2% in both study groups, he noted.

Compared with the antipsychotic aripiprazole, brexpiprazole is associated with lower weight gain and akathisia, or motor restlessness.

One death occurred in the brexpiprazole 3 mg group in a patient who had heart failure, pneumonia, and cachexia. At autopsy, it was found the patient had cerebral and coronary atherosclerosis. The death was considered to be unrelated to brexpiprazole, said Dr. Grossberg.

This finding is notable because a caveat is that brexpiprazole, like aripiprazole and other typical and atypical antipsychotics, carries an FDA boxed warning related to an increased risk for death in older patients when used for dementia-related psychosis.

Noting that a black box warning about mortality risk is not a minor issue, Dr. Grossberg added that the risks are relatively low, whereas the risks associated with agitation in dementia can be high.

“If it’s an emergency situation, you have to treat the patient because otherwise they may harm someone else, or harm the staff, or harm their loved ones or themselves, and in those cases, we want to treat the patient first, get them under control, and then we worry about the black box,” he said.

In addition, “the No. 1 reason for getting kicked out of a nursing home is agitation or severe behaviors in the context of a dementia or a major neurocognitive disorder that the facility cannot control,” Dr. Grossberg added.

In such cases, patients may wind up in an emergency department and may not be welcome back at the nursing home.

“There’s always a risk/benefit ratio, and I have that discussion with patients and their families, but I can tell you that I’ve never had a family ask me not to use a medication because of the black box warning, because they see how miserable and how out of control their loved one is and they’re miserable because they see the suffering and will ask that we do anything that we can to get this behavior under control,” Dr. Grossberg said.

Caution still warranted

Commenting on the study, Rajesh R. Tampi, MD, professor and chairman of the department of psychiatry and the Bhatia Family Endowed Chair in Psychiatry at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb., underscored that, owing to the concerns behind the FDA warnings, “nonpharmacologic management is the cornerstone of treating agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia.”

He noted that the lack of an FDA-approved drug for agitation with AD is the result of “the overall benefits of any of the drug classes or drugs trialed to treat agitation in Alzheimer’s dementia vs. their adverse effect profile,” he said.

Therefore, he continued, “any medication or medication class should be used with caution among these individuals who often have polymorbidity.”

Dr. Tampi agreed that “the use of each drug for agitation in AD should be on a case-by-case basis with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with the patient and their families.”

“These medications should only be used for refractory symptoms or emergency situations where the agitation is not managed adequately with nonpharmacologic techniques and with a clear and documented risk/benefit discussion with patients and their families,” Dr. Tampi said. 

The study was supported by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization and H. Lundbeck. Dr. Grossberg has received consulting fees from Acadia, Avanir, Biogen, BioXcel, Genentech, Karuna, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Roche, and Takeda. Dr. Tampi had no disclosures to report.

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

This article was updated 3/14/23.