Clinical Psychiatry News

One in 5. It almost seems unimaginable that this is the real number of people who are struggling with long COVID, especially considering how many people in the United States have had COVID-19 at this point (more than 96 million). Yet I continue to hear of people who are struggling, and we continue to see a flood of people in the long COVID clinic. It isn’t over, and long COVID is the new pandemic.

Even more unimaginable at this time is that it’s happening to me. I’ve experienced not only the disabling effects of long COVID, but I’ve also seen, firsthand, the frustration of navigating diagnosis and treatment. It’s given me a taste of what millions of other patients are going through.
 

Vaxxed, masked, and (too) relaxed

I caught COVID-19 (probably Omicron BA.5) that presented as sniffles, making me think it was probably just allergies. However, my resting heart rate was up on my Garmin watch, so of course I got tested and was positive.

With my symptoms virtually nonexistent, it seemed, at the time, merely an inconvenience, because I was forced to isolate away from family and friends, who all stayed negative.

But 2 weeks later, I began to have urticaria – hives – after physical exertion. Did that mean my mast cells were angry? There’s some evidence these immune cells become overactivated in some patients with COVID. Next, I began to experience lightheadedness and the rapid heartbeat of tachycardia. The tachycardia was especially bad any time I physically exerted myself, including on a walk. Imagine me – a lover of all bargain shopping – cutting short a trip to the outlet mall on a particularly bad day when my heart rate was 140 after taking just a few steps. This was orthostatic intolerance.

Then came the severe worsening of my migraines – which are often vestibular, making me nauseated and dizzy on top of the throbbing.

I was of course familiar with these symptoms, as professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. I developed a post-COVID recovery clinic to help patients.

So I knew about postexertional malaise (PEM) and postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), but I was now experiencing these distressing symptoms firsthand.

Clinicians really need to look for this cardinal sign of long COVID as well as evidence of myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). ME/CFS is marked by exacerbation of fatigue or symptoms after an activity that could previously be done without these aftereffects. In my case, as an All-American Masters miler with several marathons under my belt, running 5 miles is a walk in the park. But now, I pay for those 5 miles for the rest of the day on the couch or with palpitations, dizziness, and fatigue the following day. Busy clinic day full of procedures? I would have to be sitting by the end of it. Bed by 9 PM was not always early enough.
 

Becoming a statistic

Here I am, one of the leading experts in the country on caring for people with long COVID, featured in the national news and having testified in front of Congress, and now I am part of that lived experience. Me – a healthy athlete, with no comorbidities, a normal BMI, vaccinated and boosted, and after an almost asymptomatic bout of COVID-19, a victim to long COVID.

You just never know how your body is going to react. Neuroinflammation occurred in studies with mice with mild respiratory COVID and could be happening to me. I did not want a chronic immune-mediated vasculopathy.

So, I did what any other hyperaware physician-researcher would do. I enrolled in the RECOVER trial – a study my own institution is taking part in and one that I recommend to my own patients.

I also decided that I need to access care and not just ignore my symptoms or try to treat them myself.

That’s when things got difficult. There was a wait of at least a month to see my primary care provider – but I was able to use my privileged position as a physician to get in sooner.

My provider said that she had limited knowledge of long COVID, and she hesitated to order some of the tests and treatments that I recommended because they were not yet considered standard of care. I can understand the hesitation. It is engrained in medical education to follow evidence based on the highest-quality research studies. We are slowly learning more about long COVID, but acknowledging the learning curve offers little to patients who need help now.

This has made me realize that we cannot wait on an evidence-based approach – which can take decades to develop – while people are suffering. And it’s important that everyone on the front line learn about some of the manifestations and disease management of long COVID.

I left this first physician visit feeling more defeated than anything and decided to try to push through. That, I quickly realized, was not the right thing to do.

So again, after a couple of significant crashes and days of severe migraines, I phoned a friend: Ratna Bhavaraju-Sanka, MD, the amazing neurologist who treats patients with long COVID alongside me. She squeezed me in on a non-clinic day. Again, I had the privilege to see a specialist most people wait half a year to see. I was diagnosed with both autonomic dysfunction and intractable migraine.

She ordered some intravenous fluids and IV magnesium that would probably help both. But then another obstacle arose. My institution’s infusion center is focused on patients with cancer, and I was unable to schedule treatments there.

Luckily, I knew about the concierge mobile IV hydration therapy companies that come to your house – mostly offering a hangover treatment service. And I am thankful that I had the health literacy and financial ability to pay for some fluids at home.

On another particularly bad day, I phoned other friends – higher-ups at the hospital – who expedited a slot at the hospital infusion center and approval for the IV magnesium.

Thanks to my access, knowledge, and other privileges, I got fairly quick if imperfect care, enrolled in a research trial, and received medications. I knew to pace myself. The vast majority of others with long COVID lack these advantages.
 

The patient with long COVID

Things I have learned that others can learn, too:

• Acknowledge and recognize that long COVID is a disease that is affecting 1 in 5 Americans who catch COVID. Many look completely “normal on the outside.” Please listen to your patients.
• Autonomic dysfunction is a common manifestation of long COVID. A 10-minute stand test goes a long way in diagnosing this condition, from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. It is not just anxiety.
• “That’s only in research” is dismissive and harmful. Think outside the box. Follow guidelines. Consider encouraging patients to sign up for trials.
• Screen for PEM/PESE and teach your patients to pace themselves, because pushing through it or doing graded exercises will be harmful.
• We need to train more physicians to treat postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection () and other postinfectious conditions, such as ME/CFS.

If long COVID is hard for physicians to understand and deal with, imagine how difficult it is for patients with no expertise in this area.

It is exponentially harder for those with fewer resources, time, and health literacy. My lived experience with long COVID has shown me that being a patient is never easy. You put your body and fate into the hands of trusted professionals and expect validation and assistance, not gaslighting or gatekeeping.

Along with millions of others, I am tired of waiting.

Dr. Gutierrez is Professor and Distinguished Chair, department of rehabilitation medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. She reported receiving honoraria for lecturing on long COVID and receiving a research grant from Co-PI for the NIH RECOVER trial.

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

One in 5. It almost seems unimaginable that this is the real number of people who are struggling with long COVID, especially considering how many people in the United States have had COVID-19 at this point (more than 96 million). Yet I continue to hear of people who are struggling, and we continue to see a flood of people in the long COVID clinic. It isn’t over, and long COVID is the new pandemic.

Even more unimaginable at this time is that it’s happening to me. I’ve experienced not only the disabling effects of long COVID, but I’ve also seen, firsthand, the frustration of navigating diagnosis and treatment. It’s given me a taste of what millions of other patients are going through.
 

Vaxxed, masked, and (too) relaxed

I caught COVID-19 (probably Omicron BA.5) that presented as sniffles, making me think it was probably just allergies. However, my resting heart rate was up on my Garmin watch, so of course I got tested and was positive.

With my symptoms virtually nonexistent, it seemed, at the time, merely an inconvenience, because I was forced to isolate away from family and friends, who all stayed negative.

But 2 weeks later, I began to have urticaria – hives – after physical exertion. Did that mean my mast cells were angry? There’s some evidence these immune cells become overactivated in some patients with COVID. Next, I began to experience lightheadedness and the rapid heartbeat of tachycardia. The tachycardia was especially bad any time I physically exerted myself, including on a walk. Imagine me – a lover of all bargain shopping – cutting short a trip to the outlet mall on a particularly bad day when my heart rate was 140 after taking just a few steps. This was orthostatic intolerance.

Then came the severe worsening of my migraines – which are often vestibular, making me nauseated and dizzy on top of the throbbing.

I was of course familiar with these symptoms, as professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. I developed a post-COVID recovery clinic to help patients.

So I knew about postexertional malaise (PEM) and postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), but I was now experiencing these distressing symptoms firsthand.

Clinicians really need to look for this cardinal sign of long COVID as well as evidence of myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). ME/CFS is marked by exacerbation of fatigue or symptoms after an activity that could previously be done without these aftereffects. In my case, as an All-American Masters miler with several marathons under my belt, running 5 miles is a walk in the park. But now, I pay for those 5 miles for the rest of the day on the couch or with palpitations, dizziness, and fatigue the following day. Busy clinic day full of procedures? I would have to be sitting by the end of it. Bed by 9 PM was not always early enough.
 

Becoming a statistic

Here I am, one of the leading experts in the country on caring for people with long COVID, featured in the national news and having testified in front of Congress, and now I am part of that lived experience. Me – a healthy athlete, with no comorbidities, a normal BMI, vaccinated and boosted, and after an almost asymptomatic bout of COVID-19, a victim to long COVID.

You just never know how your body is going to react. Neuroinflammation occurred in studies with mice with mild respiratory COVID and could be happening to me. I did not want a chronic immune-mediated vasculopathy.

So, I did what any other hyperaware physician-researcher would do. I enrolled in the RECOVER trial – a study my own institution is taking part in and one that I recommend to my own patients.

I also decided that I need to access care and not just ignore my symptoms or try to treat them myself.

That’s when things got difficult. There was a wait of at least a month to see my primary care provider – but I was able to use my privileged position as a physician to get in sooner.

My provider said that she had limited knowledge of long COVID, and she hesitated to order some of the tests and treatments that I recommended because they were not yet considered standard of care. I can understand the hesitation. It is engrained in medical education to follow evidence based on the highest-quality research studies. We are slowly learning more about long COVID, but acknowledging the learning curve offers little to patients who need help now.

This has made me realize that we cannot wait on an evidence-based approach – which can take decades to develop – while people are suffering. And it’s important that everyone on the front line learn about some of the manifestations and disease management of long COVID.

I left this first physician visit feeling more defeated than anything and decided to try to push through. That, I quickly realized, was not the right thing to do.

So again, after a couple of significant crashes and days of severe migraines, I phoned a friend: Ratna Bhavaraju-Sanka, MD, the amazing neurologist who treats patients with long COVID alongside me. She squeezed me in on a non-clinic day. Again, I had the privilege to see a specialist most people wait half a year to see. I was diagnosed with both autonomic dysfunction and intractable migraine.

She ordered some intravenous fluids and IV magnesium that would probably help both. But then another obstacle arose. My institution’s infusion center is focused on patients with cancer, and I was unable to schedule treatments there.

Luckily, I knew about the concierge mobile IV hydration therapy companies that come to your house – mostly offering a hangover treatment service. And I am thankful that I had the health literacy and financial ability to pay for some fluids at home.

On another particularly bad day, I phoned other friends – higher-ups at the hospital – who expedited a slot at the hospital infusion center and approval for the IV magnesium.

Thanks to my access, knowledge, and other privileges, I got fairly quick if imperfect care, enrolled in a research trial, and received medications. I knew to pace myself. The vast majority of others with long COVID lack these advantages.
 

The patient with long COVID

Things I have learned that others can learn, too:

• Acknowledge and recognize that long COVID is a disease that is affecting 1 in 5 Americans who catch COVID. Many look completely “normal on the outside.” Please listen to your patients.
• Autonomic dysfunction is a common manifestation of long COVID. A 10-minute stand test goes a long way in diagnosing this condition, from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. It is not just anxiety.
• “That’s only in research” is dismissive and harmful. Think outside the box. Follow guidelines. Consider encouraging patients to sign up for trials.
• Screen for PEM/PESE and teach your patients to pace themselves, because pushing through it or doing graded exercises will be harmful.
• We need to train more physicians to treat postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection () and other postinfectious conditions, such as ME/CFS.

If long COVID is hard for physicians to understand and deal with, imagine how difficult it is for patients with no expertise in this area.

It is exponentially harder for those with fewer resources, time, and health literacy. My lived experience with long COVID has shown me that being a patient is never easy. You put your body and fate into the hands of trusted professionals and expect validation and assistance, not gaslighting or gatekeeping.

Along with millions of others, I am tired of waiting.

Dr. Gutierrez is Professor and Distinguished Chair, department of rehabilitation medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. She reported receiving honoraria for lecturing on long COVID and receiving a research grant from Co-PI for the NIH RECOVER trial.

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

One in 5. It almost seems unimaginable that this is the real number of people who are struggling with long COVID, especially considering how many people in the United States have had COVID-19 at this point (more than 96 million). Yet I continue to hear of people who are struggling, and we continue to see a flood of people in the long COVID clinic. It isn’t over, and long COVID is the new pandemic.

Even more unimaginable at this time is that it’s happening to me. I’ve experienced not only the disabling effects of long COVID, but I’ve also seen, firsthand, the frustration of navigating diagnosis and treatment. It’s given me a taste of what millions of other patients are going through.
 

Vaxxed, masked, and (too) relaxed

I caught COVID-19 (probably Omicron BA.5) that presented as sniffles, making me think it was probably just allergies. However, my resting heart rate was up on my Garmin watch, so of course I got tested and was positive.

With my symptoms virtually nonexistent, it seemed, at the time, merely an inconvenience, because I was forced to isolate away from family and friends, who all stayed negative.

But 2 weeks later, I began to have urticaria – hives – after physical exertion. Did that mean my mast cells were angry? There’s some evidence these immune cells become overactivated in some patients with COVID. Next, I began to experience lightheadedness and the rapid heartbeat of tachycardia. The tachycardia was especially bad any time I physically exerted myself, including on a walk. Imagine me – a lover of all bargain shopping – cutting short a trip to the outlet mall on a particularly bad day when my heart rate was 140 after taking just a few steps. This was orthostatic intolerance.

Then came the severe worsening of my migraines – which are often vestibular, making me nauseated and dizzy on top of the throbbing.

I was of course familiar with these symptoms, as professor and chair of the department of rehabilitation medicine at the Joe R. and Teresa Lozano Long School of Medicine at University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio. I developed a post-COVID recovery clinic to help patients.

So I knew about postexertional malaise (PEM) and postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), but I was now experiencing these distressing symptoms firsthand.

Clinicians really need to look for this cardinal sign of long COVID as well as evidence of myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). ME/CFS is marked by exacerbation of fatigue or symptoms after an activity that could previously be done without these aftereffects. In my case, as an All-American Masters miler with several marathons under my belt, running 5 miles is a walk in the park. But now, I pay for those 5 miles for the rest of the day on the couch or with palpitations, dizziness, and fatigue the following day. Busy clinic day full of procedures? I would have to be sitting by the end of it. Bed by 9 PM was not always early enough.
 

Becoming a statistic

Here I am, one of the leading experts in the country on caring for people with long COVID, featured in the national news and having testified in front of Congress, and now I am part of that lived experience. Me – a healthy athlete, with no comorbidities, a normal BMI, vaccinated and boosted, and after an almost asymptomatic bout of COVID-19, a victim to long COVID.

You just never know how your body is going to react. Neuroinflammation occurred in studies with mice with mild respiratory COVID and could be happening to me. I did not want a chronic immune-mediated vasculopathy.

So, I did what any other hyperaware physician-researcher would do. I enrolled in the RECOVER trial – a study my own institution is taking part in and one that I recommend to my own patients.

I also decided that I need to access care and not just ignore my symptoms or try to treat them myself.

That’s when things got difficult. There was a wait of at least a month to see my primary care provider – but I was able to use my privileged position as a physician to get in sooner.

My provider said that she had limited knowledge of long COVID, and she hesitated to order some of the tests and treatments that I recommended because they were not yet considered standard of care. I can understand the hesitation. It is engrained in medical education to follow evidence based on the highest-quality research studies. We are slowly learning more about long COVID, but acknowledging the learning curve offers little to patients who need help now.

This has made me realize that we cannot wait on an evidence-based approach – which can take decades to develop – while people are suffering. And it’s important that everyone on the front line learn about some of the manifestations and disease management of long COVID.

I left this first physician visit feeling more defeated than anything and decided to try to push through. That, I quickly realized, was not the right thing to do.

So again, after a couple of significant crashes and days of severe migraines, I phoned a friend: Ratna Bhavaraju-Sanka, MD, the amazing neurologist who treats patients with long COVID alongside me. She squeezed me in on a non-clinic day. Again, I had the privilege to see a specialist most people wait half a year to see. I was diagnosed with both autonomic dysfunction and intractable migraine.

She ordered some intravenous fluids and IV magnesium that would probably help both. But then another obstacle arose. My institution’s infusion center is focused on patients with cancer, and I was unable to schedule treatments there.

Luckily, I knew about the concierge mobile IV hydration therapy companies that come to your house – mostly offering a hangover treatment service. And I am thankful that I had the health literacy and financial ability to pay for some fluids at home.

On another particularly bad day, I phoned other friends – higher-ups at the hospital – who expedited a slot at the hospital infusion center and approval for the IV magnesium.

Thanks to my access, knowledge, and other privileges, I got fairly quick if imperfect care, enrolled in a research trial, and received medications. I knew to pace myself. The vast majority of others with long COVID lack these advantages.
 

The patient with long COVID

Things I have learned that others can learn, too:

• Acknowledge and recognize that long COVID is a disease that is affecting 1 in 5 Americans who catch COVID. Many look completely “normal on the outside.” Please listen to your patients.
• Autonomic dysfunction is a common manifestation of long COVID. A 10-minute stand test goes a long way in diagnosing this condition, from the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. It is not just anxiety.
• “That’s only in research” is dismissive and harmful. Think outside the box. Follow guidelines. Consider encouraging patients to sign up for trials.
• Screen for PEM/PESE and teach your patients to pace themselves, because pushing through it or doing graded exercises will be harmful.
• We need to train more physicians to treat postacute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection () and other postinfectious conditions, such as ME/CFS.

If long COVID is hard for physicians to understand and deal with, imagine how difficult it is for patients with no expertise in this area.

It is exponentially harder for those with fewer resources, time, and health literacy. My lived experience with long COVID has shown me that being a patient is never easy. You put your body and fate into the hands of trusted professionals and expect validation and assistance, not gaslighting or gatekeeping.

Along with millions of others, I am tired of waiting.

Dr. Gutierrez is Professor and Distinguished Chair, department of rehabilitation medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. She reported receiving honoraria for lecturing on long COVID and receiving a research grant from Co-PI for the NIH RECOVER trial.

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

Psychiatric patients with impaired communication abilities were significantly more likely to be admitted involuntarily to inpatient care and to experience coercive measures after admission, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals.

Despite improvements in reducing coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care, both involuntary admission and coercive measures remain in use in many countries worldwide, wrote Celline Cole, MSc, a doctoral candidate at Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, and colleagues. Such measures are considered “severe violations of a person’s rights to self-determination and personal freedom,” they wrote.

Previous studies have identified characteristics that increase the risk of involuntary inpatient admission, but the association between patients’ communication ability and coercive measures has not been explored, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,556 adults who were admitted to psychiatric inpatient care at a single center in Germany in 2019. Patients’ communication ability was defined and recorded as one of the following: perfect; limited because of language or other reasons; or impossible because of language or other reasons (no communication).

Overall, 23% of patients were admitted involuntarily; the most common reasons for referral to inpatient care in the study population were physical aggression against individuals (8%) or objects (4%), and verbal aggression (7%). A total of 1,085 patients (70%) were able or willing to communicate.

Patients with limited or no communication ability because of language issues were three to four times more likely to be admitted involuntarily (odds ratios, 3.08 and 4.02, respectively), while those with limited or no communication ability because of nonlanguage issues were even more likely to be admitted involuntarily (ORs, 3.10 and 13.71, respectively), compared with patients without communication problems.

Patients with limited communication ability because of language issues also were significantly more likely than those without communication issues to experience coercive measures (OR, 4.53), as were patients with either limited or no communication ability because of no-language issues (ORs, 1.58 and 3.55, respectively).

Involuntary admission was defined as provisional detention, detention initiated by the patient’s legal guardian followed by a court order, or detention by court order “according to the Mental Health Law of the State of Berlin,” the researchers said. The average length of inpatient stay was 19 days. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 96 years, with a mean age of 41.5 years, and 63% identified as male. Approximately two-thirds (62%) were unemployed or job-seeking during their treatment period, 38% were living alone, and 17% were homeless.

Although most of the study population (84%) was of German nationality, nearly half (48%) had a first- or second-generation migration background, the researchers noted.

“When thinking about effectively targeting this issue it is crucial to consider the different reasons why patients are limited in their ability to communicate,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Considering the rising numbers of refugees and persons with a migration background in Germany and many other countries worldwide, it is likely that more and more individuals with a language barrier will present at psychiatric emergency rooms,” they emphasized.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the relatively small number of patients with limitations or complete inability to communicate, and the use of data from a single hospital, and the incomplete data on nonlanguage reasons for limited or no communication ability, the researchers noted. Future studies should include more complete measures for recording these reasons, and data on forced medication, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the range of sociodemographic, clinical, and admission-related variables in a large and representative sample, and highlight the need for appropriate interventions for patients with communication challenges, they said.

“Adequate financial and human resources need to be allocated to psychiatric hospitals that allow for high quality, available, and accessible interpretation services as well as mobilization of patients’ support networks during and after admission,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Psychiatric patients with impaired communication abilities were significantly more likely to be admitted involuntarily to inpatient care and to experience coercive measures after admission, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals.

Despite improvements in reducing coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care, both involuntary admission and coercive measures remain in use in many countries worldwide, wrote Celline Cole, MSc, a doctoral candidate at Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, and colleagues. Such measures are considered “severe violations of a person’s rights to self-determination and personal freedom,” they wrote.

Previous studies have identified characteristics that increase the risk of involuntary inpatient admission, but the association between patients’ communication ability and coercive measures has not been explored, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,556 adults who were admitted to psychiatric inpatient care at a single center in Germany in 2019. Patients’ communication ability was defined and recorded as one of the following: perfect; limited because of language or other reasons; or impossible because of language or other reasons (no communication).

Overall, 23% of patients were admitted involuntarily; the most common reasons for referral to inpatient care in the study population were physical aggression against individuals (8%) or objects (4%), and verbal aggression (7%). A total of 1,085 patients (70%) were able or willing to communicate.

Patients with limited or no communication ability because of language issues were three to four times more likely to be admitted involuntarily (odds ratios, 3.08 and 4.02, respectively), while those with limited or no communication ability because of nonlanguage issues were even more likely to be admitted involuntarily (ORs, 3.10 and 13.71, respectively), compared with patients without communication problems.

Patients with limited communication ability because of language issues also were significantly more likely than those without communication issues to experience coercive measures (OR, 4.53), as were patients with either limited or no communication ability because of no-language issues (ORs, 1.58 and 3.55, respectively).

Involuntary admission was defined as provisional detention, detention initiated by the patient’s legal guardian followed by a court order, or detention by court order “according to the Mental Health Law of the State of Berlin,” the researchers said. The average length of inpatient stay was 19 days. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 96 years, with a mean age of 41.5 years, and 63% identified as male. Approximately two-thirds (62%) were unemployed or job-seeking during their treatment period, 38% were living alone, and 17% were homeless.

Although most of the study population (84%) was of German nationality, nearly half (48%) had a first- or second-generation migration background, the researchers noted.

“When thinking about effectively targeting this issue it is crucial to consider the different reasons why patients are limited in their ability to communicate,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Considering the rising numbers of refugees and persons with a migration background in Germany and many other countries worldwide, it is likely that more and more individuals with a language barrier will present at psychiatric emergency rooms,” they emphasized.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the relatively small number of patients with limitations or complete inability to communicate, and the use of data from a single hospital, and the incomplete data on nonlanguage reasons for limited or no communication ability, the researchers noted. Future studies should include more complete measures for recording these reasons, and data on forced medication, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the range of sociodemographic, clinical, and admission-related variables in a large and representative sample, and highlight the need for appropriate interventions for patients with communication challenges, they said.

“Adequate financial and human resources need to be allocated to psychiatric hospitals that allow for high quality, available, and accessible interpretation services as well as mobilization of patients’ support networks during and after admission,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Psychiatric patients with impaired communication abilities were significantly more likely to be admitted involuntarily to inpatient care and to experience coercive measures after admission, based on data from more than 1,500 individuals.

Despite improvements in reducing coercive measures in psychiatric inpatient care, both involuntary admission and coercive measures remain in use in many countries worldwide, wrote Celline Cole, MSc, a doctoral candidate at Charité Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, and colleagues. Such measures are considered “severe violations of a person’s rights to self-determination and personal freedom,” they wrote.

Previous studies have identified characteristics that increase the risk of involuntary inpatient admission, but the association between patients’ communication ability and coercive measures has not been explored, they noted.

In a study published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, the investigators reviewed data from 1,556 adults who were admitted to psychiatric inpatient care at a single center in Germany in 2019. Patients’ communication ability was defined and recorded as one of the following: perfect; limited because of language or other reasons; or impossible because of language or other reasons (no communication).

Overall, 23% of patients were admitted involuntarily; the most common reasons for referral to inpatient care in the study population were physical aggression against individuals (8%) or objects (4%), and verbal aggression (7%). A total of 1,085 patients (70%) were able or willing to communicate.

Patients with limited or no communication ability because of language issues were three to four times more likely to be admitted involuntarily (odds ratios, 3.08 and 4.02, respectively), while those with limited or no communication ability because of nonlanguage issues were even more likely to be admitted involuntarily (ORs, 3.10 and 13.71, respectively), compared with patients without communication problems.

Patients with limited communication ability because of language issues also were significantly more likely than those without communication issues to experience coercive measures (OR, 4.53), as were patients with either limited or no communication ability because of no-language issues (ORs, 1.58 and 3.55, respectively).

Involuntary admission was defined as provisional detention, detention initiated by the patient’s legal guardian followed by a court order, or detention by court order “according to the Mental Health Law of the State of Berlin,” the researchers said. The average length of inpatient stay was 19 days. The age of the patients ranged from 18 to 96 years, with a mean age of 41.5 years, and 63% identified as male. Approximately two-thirds (62%) were unemployed or job-seeking during their treatment period, 38% were living alone, and 17% were homeless.

Although most of the study population (84%) was of German nationality, nearly half (48%) had a first- or second-generation migration background, the researchers noted.

“When thinking about effectively targeting this issue it is crucial to consider the different reasons why patients are limited in their ability to communicate,” the researchers wrote in their discussion. “Considering the rising numbers of refugees and persons with a migration background in Germany and many other countries worldwide, it is likely that more and more individuals with a language barrier will present at psychiatric emergency rooms,” they emphasized.

The findings were limited by several factors including the retrospective design, the relatively small number of patients with limitations or complete inability to communicate, and the use of data from a single hospital, and the incomplete data on nonlanguage reasons for limited or no communication ability, the researchers noted. Future studies should include more complete measures for recording these reasons, and data on forced medication, they added.

However, the results were strengthened by the range of sociodemographic, clinical, and admission-related variables in a large and representative sample, and highlight the need for appropriate interventions for patients with communication challenges, they said.

“Adequate financial and human resources need to be allocated to psychiatric hospitals that allow for high quality, available, and accessible interpretation services as well as mobilization of patients’ support networks during and after admission,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

DENVER – Patients who continued to undergo routine minimally invasive cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 Omicron outbreak in 2021 were happier and more satisfied with life overall compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.

Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”

In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.

Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.

“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”

Study evaluated 42 patients

In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”

Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.

The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.

In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”

“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”

Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

DENVER – Patients who continued to undergo routine minimally invasive cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 Omicron outbreak in 2021 were happier and more satisfied with life overall compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.

Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”

In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.

Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.

“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”

Study evaluated 42 patients

In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”

Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.

The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.

In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”

“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”

Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

DENVER – Patients who continued to undergo routine minimally invasive cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 Omicron outbreak in 2021 were happier and more satisfied with life overall compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.

Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”

In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.

Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.

“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”

Study evaluated 42 patients

In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”

Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.

The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.

In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”

“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”

Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

There’s some good overall news in a large analysis that looked at whether a mother’s COVID-19 infection or birth during the pandemic could affect a baby’s brain development.

Researchers studied 21,419 infants who had neurodevelopmental screening during the pandemic (from January 2020 to January 2021) and compared them with babies born before the pandemic (2015-2019).

They found in an analysis of eight studies that, generally, brain development in infants ages 6-12 months old was not changed by COVID-19.
 

Communication skill scores lower than prepandemic

However, one area did see a significant difference when they looked at answers to the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (ASQ-3): Scores were lower in communication skills.

Compared with the prepandemic babies, the pandemic group of babies was more likely to have communication impairment (odds were 1.7 times higher).

Additionally, mothers’ SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with significant differences in any neurodevelopment sector in offspring, with one exception: Odds were 3.5 times higher for fine motor impairment in the pandemic baby group.

The babies in this study were either exposed in the womb to the SARS-CoV-2 infection or screened during the pandemic regardless of whether they were exposed to the virus.

The study, led by Kamran Hessami, MD, with the Maternal Fetal Care Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Potential reasons for lower communication skills

The study points to some factors of the pandemic that may be tied to impaired communication skills.

“Higher levels of COVID-19–related stress were reported for both mothers and fathers of infants aged 0-6 months and were associated with insensitive parenting practices, including decreased emotional responsiveness in only mothers, which could lessen the reciprocal exchanges that support language development in early childhood,” they write. “Additionally, opportunities to promote language and social development through new experiences outside the home, including visits with extended family and friends or attendance at a child care center, were lessened for many during the pandemic.”

Viviana M. Fajardo Martinez, MD, with neonatal/perinatal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Health, told this publication her team is also studying child development before and after the pandemic over a 3-year period, and delayed communication skills is something she is seeing in clinic there.

She says some parents have been concerned, saying their babies aren’t talking enough or are behind in vocabulary.
 

Babies can catch up after 12 months

One thing she tells parents is that babies who are a bit delayed at 12 months can catch up.

Up to 18 months, they can catch up, she said, adding that they can be reevaluated then for improvement. If, at that point, the baby is not catching up, “that’s when we refer for early intervention,” she said.

Dr. Martinez also tells parents concerned about their infant’s communication skills that it’s important to talk, read, and sing to their child. She said amid pandemic stress, corners may have been cut in asking children to use language skills.

For instance, if a child points to an apple, a stressed parent may just give the child the apple instead of asking the child to request it by name and repeat the word several times.

She also said a limitation of this study is the use of the ASQ-3 questionnaire, which is filled out by parents. Answers are subjective, she notes, and sometimes differ between one child’s two parents. The questionnaire was commonly used during the pandemic because a more objective, professional evaluation has been more difficult.

However, a measure like the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Screening Test adds objectivity and will likely give a better picture as research progresses, Dr. Martinez said. 
 

Some information missing

Andréane Lavallée, PhD, and Dani Dumitriu, MD, PhD, both with the department of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, write in an invited commentary that the overall positive message of the study “should not make researchers complacent” and results should be viewed with caution.

They point out that the precise effects of this novel virus are still unclear and the age group and variables studied may not tell the whole story.

“It should be noted that this systematic review did not consider timing of exposure during pregnancy, maternal infection severity, or exposure to various SARS-CoV-2 variants – all factors that could eventually be proven to contribute to subtle adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they write.

Additionally, past pandemics “such as the 1918 Spanish flu, 1964 rubella, and 2009 H1N1” have taught researchers to watch for increases in diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and schizophrenia in subsequent years.

“ASD is generally diagnosed at age 3-5 years (and often not until early teens), while schizophrenia is generally diagnosed in mid-to-late 20s,” the editorialists point out. The authors agree and emphasize the need for long-term studies.

Authors report no relevant financial relationships. Editorialist Dr. Dumitriu reports grants from National Institute of Mental Health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; and has received gift funds from Einhorn Collaborative during the conduct of the study to the Nurture Science Program, for which Dr Dumitriu serves as director. Dr. Dumitriu received personal fees from Medela outside the submitted work; and is the corresponding author for one of the studies (Shuffrey et al., 2022) included in the systematic review conducted by Dr. Hessami et al. Dr. Lavallée reports grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Martinez reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

There’s some good overall news in a large analysis that looked at whether a mother’s COVID-19 infection or birth during the pandemic could affect a baby’s brain development.

Researchers studied 21,419 infants who had neurodevelopmental screening during the pandemic (from January 2020 to January 2021) and compared them with babies born before the pandemic (2015-2019).

They found in an analysis of eight studies that, generally, brain development in infants ages 6-12 months old was not changed by COVID-19.
 

Communication skill scores lower than prepandemic

However, one area did see a significant difference when they looked at answers to the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (ASQ-3): Scores were lower in communication skills.

Compared with the prepandemic babies, the pandemic group of babies was more likely to have communication impairment (odds were 1.7 times higher).

Additionally, mothers’ SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with significant differences in any neurodevelopment sector in offspring, with one exception: Odds were 3.5 times higher for fine motor impairment in the pandemic baby group.

The babies in this study were either exposed in the womb to the SARS-CoV-2 infection or screened during the pandemic regardless of whether they were exposed to the virus.

The study, led by Kamran Hessami, MD, with the Maternal Fetal Care Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Potential reasons for lower communication skills

The study points to some factors of the pandemic that may be tied to impaired communication skills.

“Higher levels of COVID-19–related stress were reported for both mothers and fathers of infants aged 0-6 months and were associated with insensitive parenting practices, including decreased emotional responsiveness in only mothers, which could lessen the reciprocal exchanges that support language development in early childhood,” they write. “Additionally, opportunities to promote language and social development through new experiences outside the home, including visits with extended family and friends or attendance at a child care center, were lessened for many during the pandemic.”

Viviana M. Fajardo Martinez, MD, with neonatal/perinatal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Health, told this publication her team is also studying child development before and after the pandemic over a 3-year period, and delayed communication skills is something she is seeing in clinic there.

She says some parents have been concerned, saying their babies aren’t talking enough or are behind in vocabulary.
 

Babies can catch up after 12 months

One thing she tells parents is that babies who are a bit delayed at 12 months can catch up.

Up to 18 months, they can catch up, she said, adding that they can be reevaluated then for improvement. If, at that point, the baby is not catching up, “that’s when we refer for early intervention,” she said.

Dr. Martinez also tells parents concerned about their infant’s communication skills that it’s important to talk, read, and sing to their child. She said amid pandemic stress, corners may have been cut in asking children to use language skills.

For instance, if a child points to an apple, a stressed parent may just give the child the apple instead of asking the child to request it by name and repeat the word several times.

She also said a limitation of this study is the use of the ASQ-3 questionnaire, which is filled out by parents. Answers are subjective, she notes, and sometimes differ between one child’s two parents. The questionnaire was commonly used during the pandemic because a more objective, professional evaluation has been more difficult.

However, a measure like the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Screening Test adds objectivity and will likely give a better picture as research progresses, Dr. Martinez said. 
 

Some information missing

Andréane Lavallée, PhD, and Dani Dumitriu, MD, PhD, both with the department of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, write in an invited commentary that the overall positive message of the study “should not make researchers complacent” and results should be viewed with caution.

They point out that the precise effects of this novel virus are still unclear and the age group and variables studied may not tell the whole story.

“It should be noted that this systematic review did not consider timing of exposure during pregnancy, maternal infection severity, or exposure to various SARS-CoV-2 variants – all factors that could eventually be proven to contribute to subtle adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they write.

Additionally, past pandemics “such as the 1918 Spanish flu, 1964 rubella, and 2009 H1N1” have taught researchers to watch for increases in diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and schizophrenia in subsequent years.

“ASD is generally diagnosed at age 3-5 years (and often not until early teens), while schizophrenia is generally diagnosed in mid-to-late 20s,” the editorialists point out. The authors agree and emphasize the need for long-term studies.

Authors report no relevant financial relationships. Editorialist Dr. Dumitriu reports grants from National Institute of Mental Health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; and has received gift funds from Einhorn Collaborative during the conduct of the study to the Nurture Science Program, for which Dr Dumitriu serves as director. Dr. Dumitriu received personal fees from Medela outside the submitted work; and is the corresponding author for one of the studies (Shuffrey et al., 2022) included in the systematic review conducted by Dr. Hessami et al. Dr. Lavallée reports grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Martinez reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

There’s some good overall news in a large analysis that looked at whether a mother’s COVID-19 infection or birth during the pandemic could affect a baby’s brain development.

Researchers studied 21,419 infants who had neurodevelopmental screening during the pandemic (from January 2020 to January 2021) and compared them with babies born before the pandemic (2015-2019).

They found in an analysis of eight studies that, generally, brain development in infants ages 6-12 months old was not changed by COVID-19.
 

Communication skill scores lower than prepandemic

However, one area did see a significant difference when they looked at answers to the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 3rd edition (ASQ-3): Scores were lower in communication skills.

Compared with the prepandemic babies, the pandemic group of babies was more likely to have communication impairment (odds were 1.7 times higher).

Additionally, mothers’ SARS-CoV-2 infection was not associated with significant differences in any neurodevelopment sector in offspring, with one exception: Odds were 3.5 times higher for fine motor impairment in the pandemic baby group.

The babies in this study were either exposed in the womb to the SARS-CoV-2 infection or screened during the pandemic regardless of whether they were exposed to the virus.

The study, led by Kamran Hessami, MD, with the Maternal Fetal Care Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, was published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Potential reasons for lower communication skills

The study points to some factors of the pandemic that may be tied to impaired communication skills.

“Higher levels of COVID-19–related stress were reported for both mothers and fathers of infants aged 0-6 months and were associated with insensitive parenting practices, including decreased emotional responsiveness in only mothers, which could lessen the reciprocal exchanges that support language development in early childhood,” they write. “Additionally, opportunities to promote language and social development through new experiences outside the home, including visits with extended family and friends or attendance at a child care center, were lessened for many during the pandemic.”

Viviana M. Fajardo Martinez, MD, with neonatal/perinatal medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Health, told this publication her team is also studying child development before and after the pandemic over a 3-year period, and delayed communication skills is something she is seeing in clinic there.

She says some parents have been concerned, saying their babies aren’t talking enough or are behind in vocabulary.
 

Babies can catch up after 12 months

One thing she tells parents is that babies who are a bit delayed at 12 months can catch up.

Up to 18 months, they can catch up, she said, adding that they can be reevaluated then for improvement. If, at that point, the baby is not catching up, “that’s when we refer for early intervention,” she said.

Dr. Martinez also tells parents concerned about their infant’s communication skills that it’s important to talk, read, and sing to their child. She said amid pandemic stress, corners may have been cut in asking children to use language skills.

For instance, if a child points to an apple, a stressed parent may just give the child the apple instead of asking the child to request it by name and repeat the word several times.

She also said a limitation of this study is the use of the ASQ-3 questionnaire, which is filled out by parents. Answers are subjective, she notes, and sometimes differ between one child’s two parents. The questionnaire was commonly used during the pandemic because a more objective, professional evaluation has been more difficult.

However, a measure like the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development Screening Test adds objectivity and will likely give a better picture as research progresses, Dr. Martinez said. 
 

Some information missing

Andréane Lavallée, PhD, and Dani Dumitriu, MD, PhD, both with the department of pediatrics at Columbia University, New York, write in an invited commentary that the overall positive message of the study “should not make researchers complacent” and results should be viewed with caution.

They point out that the precise effects of this novel virus are still unclear and the age group and variables studied may not tell the whole story.

“It should be noted that this systematic review did not consider timing of exposure during pregnancy, maternal infection severity, or exposure to various SARS-CoV-2 variants – all factors that could eventually be proven to contribute to subtle adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes,” they write.

Additionally, past pandemics “such as the 1918 Spanish flu, 1964 rubella, and 2009 H1N1” have taught researchers to watch for increases in diagnoses such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and schizophrenia in subsequent years.

“ASD is generally diagnosed at age 3-5 years (and often not until early teens), while schizophrenia is generally diagnosed in mid-to-late 20s,” the editorialists point out. The authors agree and emphasize the need for long-term studies.

Authors report no relevant financial relationships. Editorialist Dr. Dumitriu reports grants from National Institute of Mental Health, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; and has received gift funds from Einhorn Collaborative during the conduct of the study to the Nurture Science Program, for which Dr Dumitriu serves as director. Dr. Dumitriu received personal fees from Medela outside the submitted work; and is the corresponding author for one of the studies (Shuffrey et al., 2022) included in the systematic review conducted by Dr. Hessami et al. Dr. Lavallée reports grants from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Martinez reports no relevant financial relationships.
 

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

When a consumer uses a health plan provider directory to look up a physician, there’s a high probability that the entry for that doctor is incomplete or inaccurate. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would like to change that by creating a National Directory of Healthcare Providers and Services, which the agency believes would be more valuable to consumers.

In asking for public comments on whether and how it should establish the directory, CMS argues that this data repository would help patients locate physicians and could help with care coordination, health information exchange, and public health data reporting.

However, it’s not clear that such a directory would be any better than current insurance company listings or that people would use it. But a national directory could benefit physician practices by reducing their administrative work, according to observers.

In requesting public comment on the proposed national directory, CMS explains that provider organizations face “redundant and burdensome reporting requirements to multiple databases.” The directory could greatly reduce this challenge by requiring health care organizations to report provider information to a single database. Currently, physician practices have to submit these data to an average of 20 payers each, according to CMS.

“Right now, [physicians are] inundated with requests, and it takes a lot of time to update this stuff,” said David Zetter, a practice management consultant in Mechanicsburg, Pa.. “If there were one national repository of this information, that would be a good move.”

CMS envisions the National Directory as a central hub from which payers could obtain the latest provider data, which would be updated through a standardized application programming interface (API). Consequently, the insurers would no longer need to have providers submit this information to them separately.

CMS is soliciting input on what should be included in the directory. It notes that in addition to contact information, insurer directories also include a physicians’ specialties, health plan affiliations, and whether they accept new patients.

CMS’ 60-day public comment period ends Dec. 6. After that, the agency will decide what steps to take if it is decided that CMS has the legal authority to create the directory.
 

Terrible track record

In its annual reviews of health plan directories, CMS found that, from 2017 to 2022, only 47% of provider entries were complete. Only 73% of the providers could be matched to published directories. And only 28% of the provider names, addresses, and specialties in the directories matched those in the National Provider Identifier (NPI) registry.

Many of the mistakes in provider directories stem from errors made by practice staff, who have many other duties besides updating directory data. Yet an astonishing amount of time and effort is devoted to this task. A 2019 survey found that physician practices spend $2.76 billion annually on directory maintenance, or nearly $1000 per month per practice, on average.

The Council for Affordable Quality Healthcare, which conducted the survey, estimated that placing all directory data collection on a single platform could save the average practice $4,746 per year. For all practices in the United States, that works out to about $1.1 billion annually, CAQH said.
 

Pros and cons of national directory

For all the money spent on maintaining provider directories, consumers don’t use them very much. According to a 2021 Press Ganey survey, fewer than 5% of consumers seeking a primary care doctor get their information from an insurer or a benefits manager. About half search the internet first, and 24% seek a referral from a physician.

A national provider directory would be useful only if it were done right, Mr. Zetter said. Citing the inaccuracy and incompleteness of health plan directories, he said it was likely that a national directory would have similar problems. Data entered by practice staff would have to be automatically validated, perhaps through use of some kind of AI algorithm.
 

Effect on coordination of care

Mr. Zetter doubts the directory could improve care coordination, because primary care doctors usually refer patients to specialists they already know.

But Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and director of the Center for Clinical Informatics at the University of California, San Francisco, said that a national directory could improve communications among providers when patients select specialists outside of their primary care physician’s referral network.

“Especially if it’s not an established referral relationship, that’s where a national directory would be helpful, not only to locate the physicians but also to understand their preferences in how they’d like to receive information,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Adler-Milstein worries less than Mr. Zetter does about the challenge of ensuring the accuracy of data in the directory. She pointed out that the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which includes the NPI registry, has done a good job of validating provider name, address, and specialty information.

Dr. Adler-Milstein is more concerned about whether the proposed directory would address physician preferences as to how they wish to receive information. For example, while some physicians may prefer to be contacted directly, others may prefer or are required to communicate through their practices or health systems.
 

Efficiency in data exchange

The API used by the proposed directory would be based on the Fast Health Interoperability Resources standard that all electronic health record vendors must now include in their products. That raises the question of whether communications using contact information from the directory would be sent through a secure email system or through integrated EHR systems, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

“I’m not sure whether the directory could support that [integration],” she said. “If it focuses on the concept of secure email exchange, that’s a relatively inefficient way of doing it,” because providers want clinical messages to pop up in their EHR workflow rather than their inboxes.

Nevertheless, Dr. Milstein-Adler added, the directory “would clearly take a lot of today’s manual work out of the system. I think organizations like UCSF would be very motivated to support the directory, knowing that people were going to a single source to find the updated information, including preferences in how we’d like people to communicate with us. There would be a lot of efficiency reasons for organizations to use this national directory.”

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

Smokers who quit before age 35 showed a "substantial" reduction in risk, compared with people who never smoked, according to a new national study.

Researchers also quantified the benefit of quitting for those older than 35. The added risk of death associated with smoking was reduced by 90% for those who quit before age 45 and 66% for those who quit at ages 45 to 64.

“The distal nature of the health consequences for young smokers is a challenge for professionals trying to motivate quitting in younger age groups. Without a proximal goal, it is tempting for smokers to abandon a quit attempt with cognitions such as ‘I don’t really need to do it just now,’ ” John P. Pierce, PhD, director for Population Sciences at UC-San Diego’s Moores Cancer Center, wrote in a commentary. 

Current smokers were twice as likely to die from any cause during the study, compared with the group researchers called “never smokers,” who were defined as smoking fewer than 100 lifetime cigarettes. 

Published in JAMA Network Open, the study involved 551,388 U.S. participants using information collected by the CDC from 1997 to 2018. Researchers collected data for specific causes of death of participants through the end of 2019.

The results echo past findings but also established whether demographic factors such as a smoker’s race and gender impact the benefits of quitting. (In many areas of health research, a person’s race or gender is associated with varying risks.)

The researchers found that the benefits of quitting smoking in reducing risk of death are comparable across demographic groups.

“Among former smokers in each racial and ethnic group, whether male or female, quitting was associated with reductions of approximately 80% of the excess mortality associated with continued smoking,” the authors stated. “These associations were generally consistent for deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lower respiratory disease.”

The findings are also important for guiding stop-smoking efforts because while smoking nationwide has decreased, the reduction has varied across demographic groups.

“Monitoring the association of smoking with mortality by race, ethnicity, and sex is critical to understanding how the U.S. tobacco epidemic continues to evolve over time and who is most affected by the changes,” the authors stated. “Despite continued decreases in U.S. smoking prevalence in recent decades, progress has not been equal across demographic groups. Recent progress in raising the quit ratio among U.S. ever-smokers overall has been modest, and the quit ratio has been consistently lower among Black and Hispanic ever-smokers than among non-Hispanic White ever-smokers.”

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

This article was updated 10/27/22.

Smokers who quit before age 35 showed a "substantial" reduction in risk, compared with people who never smoked, according to a new national study.

Researchers also quantified the benefit of quitting for those older than 35. The added risk of death associated with smoking was reduced by 90% for those who quit before age 45 and 66% for those who quit at ages 45 to 64.

“The distal nature of the health consequences for young smokers is a challenge for professionals trying to motivate quitting in younger age groups. Without a proximal goal, it is tempting for smokers to abandon a quit attempt with cognitions such as ‘I don’t really need to do it just now,’ ” John P. Pierce, PhD, director for Population Sciences at UC-San Diego’s Moores Cancer Center, wrote in a commentary. 

Current smokers were twice as likely to die from any cause during the study, compared with the group researchers called “never smokers,” who were defined as smoking fewer than 100 lifetime cigarettes. 

Published in JAMA Network Open, the study involved 551,388 U.S. participants using information collected by the CDC from 1997 to 2018. Researchers collected data for specific causes of death of participants through the end of 2019.

The results echo past findings but also established whether demographic factors such as a smoker’s race and gender impact the benefits of quitting. (In many areas of health research, a person’s race or gender is associated with varying risks.)

The researchers found that the benefits of quitting smoking in reducing risk of death are comparable across demographic groups.

“Among former smokers in each racial and ethnic group, whether male or female, quitting was associated with reductions of approximately 80% of the excess mortality associated with continued smoking,” the authors stated. “These associations were generally consistent for deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lower respiratory disease.”

The findings are also important for guiding stop-smoking efforts because while smoking nationwide has decreased, the reduction has varied across demographic groups.

“Monitoring the association of smoking with mortality by race, ethnicity, and sex is critical to understanding how the U.S. tobacco epidemic continues to evolve over time and who is most affected by the changes,” the authors stated. “Despite continued decreases in U.S. smoking prevalence in recent decades, progress has not been equal across demographic groups. Recent progress in raising the quit ratio among U.S. ever-smokers overall has been modest, and the quit ratio has been consistently lower among Black and Hispanic ever-smokers than among non-Hispanic White ever-smokers.”

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

This article was updated 10/27/22.

Smokers who quit before age 35 showed a "substantial" reduction in risk, compared with people who never smoked, according to a new national study.

Researchers also quantified the benefit of quitting for those older than 35. The added risk of death associated with smoking was reduced by 90% for those who quit before age 45 and 66% for those who quit at ages 45 to 64.

“The distal nature of the health consequences for young smokers is a challenge for professionals trying to motivate quitting in younger age groups. Without a proximal goal, it is tempting for smokers to abandon a quit attempt with cognitions such as ‘I don’t really need to do it just now,’ ” John P. Pierce, PhD, director for Population Sciences at UC-San Diego’s Moores Cancer Center, wrote in a commentary. 

Current smokers were twice as likely to die from any cause during the study, compared with the group researchers called “never smokers,” who were defined as smoking fewer than 100 lifetime cigarettes. 

Published in JAMA Network Open, the study involved 551,388 U.S. participants using information collected by the CDC from 1997 to 2018. Researchers collected data for specific causes of death of participants through the end of 2019.

The results echo past findings but also established whether demographic factors such as a smoker’s race and gender impact the benefits of quitting. (In many areas of health research, a person’s race or gender is associated with varying risks.)

The researchers found that the benefits of quitting smoking in reducing risk of death are comparable across demographic groups.

“Among former smokers in each racial and ethnic group, whether male or female, quitting was associated with reductions of approximately 80% of the excess mortality associated with continued smoking,” the authors stated. “These associations were generally consistent for deaths from cancer, cardiovascular disease, and lower respiratory disease.”

The findings are also important for guiding stop-smoking efforts because while smoking nationwide has decreased, the reduction has varied across demographic groups.

“Monitoring the association of smoking with mortality by race, ethnicity, and sex is critical to understanding how the U.S. tobacco epidemic continues to evolve over time and who is most affected by the changes,” the authors stated. “Despite continued decreases in U.S. smoking prevalence in recent decades, progress has not been equal across demographic groups. Recent progress in raising the quit ratio among U.S. ever-smokers overall has been modest, and the quit ratio has been consistently lower among Black and Hispanic ever-smokers than among non-Hispanic White ever-smokers.”

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

This article was updated 10/27/22.

Masks can be scary on Halloween, but more so when they come with scrubs, scalpels, and God complexes. In March, Medscape readers chose their favorite characters and performers in the Hollywood health care system. As a Halloween treat, we follow up with a dozen of our favorite Evil Doctors from a deep bench (and no, Dr Evil didn’t go to medical school; neither did Dr No, for that matter). Before you see these folks who’d rather haunt than heal, we urge you to seek a second opinion.

George Harris (Richard Widmark, “Coma,” 1978)

“Medicine is now a great social force,” says Dr. George Harris (Richard Widmark), chief of surgery at Boston Memorial. Because the public trusts doctors, “we’ll make the hard decisions” – like choosing which young, healthy patients to put into an irreversible coma to harvest their organs. Harris’ audience of one here is Dr. Susan Wheeler (Genevieve Bujold), the upstart who has uncovered his plot, and whom Harris has just drugged to prepare her as his next unintentional donor. “Coma” was based on a bestseller by Robin Cook and directed by Michael Crichton, who left Harvard Medical School for a career in popular books and films, including “The Andromeda Strain” and “Jurassic Park.” Although Dr. Harris starts out as a reassuring friend and mentor to Dr. Wheeler, older moviegoers won’t forget that he launched to stardom by tossing a woman in a wheelchair down the stairs in 1947’s “Kiss of Death.”
 

Christian Szell (Laurence Olivier, “Marathon Man,” 1976)

He may look harmless, but Christian Szell (Laurence Olivier) is a sadist with a secret, a stash, and throat-slitting skills. Szell, a dentist known as the White Angel of Auschwitz for his war crimes, stops at nothing to protect the diamonds he stole from his victims in the camps. In one of Hollywood’s most infamous torture scenes, Szell tries to extract information from Babe Levy (Dustin Hoffman), an innocent grad student, plying the tools of his trade. When Szell asks, “Is it safe?” he’s not curious about whether Babe’s insurance covers anesthesia.

Orin Scrivello (Steve Martin, “Little Shop of Horrors,” 1986)

Sticking with deranged dentists, Orin Scrivello, DDS, (Steve Martin) sings and dances his way into your nightmares buoyed by copious helpings of nitrous oxide. Orin’s too-encouraging momma told him to parlay his sadistic tendencies into a career “where people will pay you to be inhumane.” Sonny listened. Moviegoers were treated to screeching sound effects of a tooth getting yanked during an Elvis-like musical number shot in part from inside a patient’s mouth. Martin makes a creepy scene more fun than a long, slow root canal.

Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive, “Frankenstein,” 1931)

His alarming need for fresh corpses forced Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) to leave medical school and experiment solo in a castle. He insists to his betrothed that he hasn’t gone mad when she arrives as  he is bringing a dead body back to life during a raging lightning storm. When she and Henry’s mentor, Dr Waldman, witness him succeed, Waldman warns Henry that the former owner of the purloined brain was a notorious criminal. When Henry exclaims: “It’s alive, it’s alive !” little did he know that he created the face (Boris Karloff) that would launch a thousand sequels, a spectacular satire, and untold Halloween masks.

Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre, “Mad Love,” 1935)

A few years after playing doctor Frankenstein, Colin Clive became the patient of a mad medic himself. A concert pianist whose hands have been mangled in a train wreck, Clive’s wife turns to Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre, in his Hollywood debut), who promises to surgically reattach the musician’s hands. Unfortunately, Gogol is so obsessed with the wife, a star of gory stage shows, that he has created a wax figure of her. He schemes to win her in the flesh by attaching a murderer’s hands to Clive, then frame him for committing murder with those hands. Gogol utters the madman’s lament: “I have conquered science. Why can’t I conquer love?” A modern remake would surely have him asking, “Why do they swipe left?

Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins, “Silence of the Lambs,” 1991)

The FBI, hunting for a serial killer, sends trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) to seek insight into the murderer from the imprisoned Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant psychiatrist with a penchant for murder — and a taste for the flesh of his victims. Lecter proves to be a menace from their first meeting; the bars and glass surrounding his cell offer Clarice no protection from his gaze and ability to read her mind. In his own way, the urbane, pathologically charming Lecter takes a shine to Clarice, helping with the case while embarking on another murderous spree against men who recently wronged her. When he escapes, his plans do not include dinner with – or of – Clarice, but others, well, they’re not so lucky.

Henry Jekyll (Fredric March, “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” 1931)

Henry Jekyll (Fredric March) is a jumble of personalities. By day, he’s a kindly doctor in Victorian London with an American accent. But he is so determined to split good and evil personalities that he devises a potion to outsource his id. As he watches himself morph into Mr. Hyde – a hairy, cone-headed dude in serious need of an orthodontist – he exclaims, “Free! Free at last!” Free, that is, for his simian side to engage in debauchery, abuse, self-hatred, intimations of rape, and ultimately murder – all of which are explored in this pre-Code film, the first talkie version of Robert Louis Stevenson’s story.

Dr. Moreau (Charles Laughton, “Island of Lost Souls,” 1932)

“Strange-looking natives you have here,” shipwreck victim Edward Parker (Richard Arlen) tells his host, the white-suited, whip-wielding Dr Moreau. Before long, we learn that Moreau’s evil veterinary talents  have created an island population of human/beast hybrids who are forced to follow his laws – especially one forbidding them from eating meat or walking on all fours. Lawbreakers get taken to the House of Pain, a medical setting which, as its name suggests, lacks adequate analgesia. Burt Lancaster and Marlon Brando took on the Moreau role in later versions, but Laughton is the creepiest when he asks, “Do you know what it means to feel like God?” The film was banned for years in Britain, and H.G. Wells despised this take on his antivivisection tale.

Charles Nichols (Jeroen Krabbé, “The Fugitive,” 1993)

Richard Kimble, a Chicago vascular surgeon, arrives home to find that a man just brutally murdered his loving wife. The killer escapes, and Kimble falls into the frame-up. Convicted for the murder and headed to prison, Kimble breaks free in an epic escape scene. He spends the rest of the movie all but giving his right arm to find the murderer, while being pursued by a dogged U.S. Marshal played with gusto by Tommy Lee Jones. Kimble eventually discovers that his colleague, Dr. Charles Nichols (Jeroen Krabbé), is not quite the best friend a man could have – or the most ethical of clinical investigators.

Elliot and Beverly Mantle (Jeremy Irons, “Dead Ringers,” 1988)

“You’ve got to try the movie star,” fertility specialist Elliot Mantle (Jeremy Irons) implores to his identical but meek twin brother, Beverly (also Jeremy Irons), talking about an actress-patient (Genevieve Bujold) as if she were a menu item. Beverly shares a practice with Elliot, along with a soul and an easily satisfied drug addiction. Beverly is unaware that Elliot seduces patients before passing them off to his brother, including the actress. Beverly is in love with the actress, which upsets the equilibrium of their shared soul. He aims to fix this, but not without some trauma involving freakish and unsanitary operating implements.

Dean Armitage (Bradley Whitford, “Get Out,” 2017)

Neurosurgeon Dean Armitage (Bradley Whitford) was such a fan of President Obama that he would have voted for him a third time if he could. At least, that’s how he portrays himself to Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), an African American photographer and the new boyfriend of Armitage’s White daughter. The Armitage estate has plenty of people of color – on staff, anyway – but Chris finds them odd and distant. It turns out that a gathering of rich White people is in fact an auction for his eyesight. Horror ensues. The main message from this film is not unlike that of Russian operatives who fall out of favor with the Kremlin: Don’t drink the tea.

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

Masks can be scary on Halloween, but more so when they come with scrubs, scalpels, and God complexes. In March, Medscape readers chose their favorite characters and performers in the Hollywood health care system. As a Halloween treat, we follow up with a dozen of our favorite Evil Doctors from a deep bench (and no, Dr Evil didn’t go to medical school; neither did Dr No, for that matter). Before you see these folks who’d rather haunt than heal, we urge you to seek a second opinion.

George Harris (Richard Widmark, “Coma,” 1978)

“Medicine is now a great social force,” says Dr. George Harris (Richard Widmark), chief of surgery at Boston Memorial. Because the public trusts doctors, “we’ll make the hard decisions” – like choosing which young, healthy patients to put into an irreversible coma to harvest their organs. Harris’ audience of one here is Dr. Susan Wheeler (Genevieve Bujold), the upstart who has uncovered his plot, and whom Harris has just drugged to prepare her as his next unintentional donor. “Coma” was based on a bestseller by Robin Cook and directed by Michael Crichton, who left Harvard Medical School for a career in popular books and films, including “The Andromeda Strain” and “Jurassic Park.” Although Dr. Harris starts out as a reassuring friend and mentor to Dr. Wheeler, older moviegoers won’t forget that he launched to stardom by tossing a woman in a wheelchair down the stairs in 1947’s “Kiss of Death.”
 

Christian Szell (Laurence Olivier, “Marathon Man,” 1976)

He may look harmless, but Christian Szell (Laurence Olivier) is a sadist with a secret, a stash, and throat-slitting skills. Szell, a dentist known as the White Angel of Auschwitz for his war crimes, stops at nothing to protect the diamonds he stole from his victims in the camps. In one of Hollywood’s most infamous torture scenes, Szell tries to extract information from Babe Levy (Dustin Hoffman), an innocent grad student, plying the tools of his trade. When Szell asks, “Is it safe?” he’s not curious about whether Babe’s insurance covers anesthesia.

Orin Scrivello (Steve Martin, “Little Shop of Horrors,” 1986)

Sticking with deranged dentists, Orin Scrivello, DDS, (Steve Martin) sings and dances his way into your nightmares buoyed by copious helpings of nitrous oxide. Orin’s too-encouraging momma told him to parlay his sadistic tendencies into a career “where people will pay you to be inhumane.” Sonny listened. Moviegoers were treated to screeching sound effects of a tooth getting yanked during an Elvis-like musical number shot in part from inside a patient’s mouth. Martin makes a creepy scene more fun than a long, slow root canal.

Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive, “Frankenstein,” 1931)

His alarming need for fresh corpses forced Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) to leave medical school and experiment solo in a castle. He insists to his betrothed that he hasn’t gone mad when she arrives as  he is bringing a dead body back to life during a raging lightning storm. When she and Henry’s mentor, Dr Waldman, witness him succeed, Waldman warns Henry that the former owner of the purloined brain was a notorious criminal. When Henry exclaims: “It’s alive, it’s alive !” little did he know that he created the face (Boris Karloff) that would launch a thousand sequels, a spectacular satire, and untold Halloween masks.

Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre, “Mad Love,” 1935)

A few years after playing doctor Frankenstein, Colin Clive became the patient of a mad medic himself. A concert pianist whose hands have been mangled in a train wreck, Clive’s wife turns to Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre, in his Hollywood debut), who promises to surgically reattach the musician’s hands. Unfortunately, Gogol is so obsessed with the wife, a star of gory stage shows, that he has created a wax figure of her. He schemes to win her in the flesh by attaching a murderer’s hands to Clive, then frame him for committing murder with those hands. Gogol utters the madman’s lament: “I have conquered science. Why can’t I conquer love?” A modern remake would surely have him asking, “Why do they swipe left?

Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins, “Silence of the Lambs,” 1991)

The FBI, hunting for a serial killer, sends trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) to seek insight into the murderer from the imprisoned Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant psychiatrist with a penchant for murder — and a taste for the flesh of his victims. Lecter proves to be a menace from their first meeting; the bars and glass surrounding his cell offer Clarice no protection from his gaze and ability to read her mind. In his own way, the urbane, pathologically charming Lecter takes a shine to Clarice, helping with the case while embarking on another murderous spree against men who recently wronged her. When he escapes, his plans do not include dinner with – or of – Clarice, but others, well, they’re not so lucky.

Henry Jekyll (Fredric March, “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” 1931)

Henry Jekyll (Fredric March) is a jumble of personalities. By day, he’s a kindly doctor in Victorian London with an American accent. But he is so determined to split good and evil personalities that he devises a potion to outsource his id. As he watches himself morph into Mr. Hyde – a hairy, cone-headed dude in serious need of an orthodontist – he exclaims, “Free! Free at last!” Free, that is, for his simian side to engage in debauchery, abuse, self-hatred, intimations of rape, and ultimately murder – all of which are explored in this pre-Code film, the first talkie version of Robert Louis Stevenson’s story.

Dr. Moreau (Charles Laughton, “Island of Lost Souls,” 1932)

“Strange-looking natives you have here,” shipwreck victim Edward Parker (Richard Arlen) tells his host, the white-suited, whip-wielding Dr Moreau. Before long, we learn that Moreau’s evil veterinary talents  have created an island population of human/beast hybrids who are forced to follow his laws – especially one forbidding them from eating meat or walking on all fours. Lawbreakers get taken to the House of Pain, a medical setting which, as its name suggests, lacks adequate analgesia. Burt Lancaster and Marlon Brando took on the Moreau role in later versions, but Laughton is the creepiest when he asks, “Do you know what it means to feel like God?” The film was banned for years in Britain, and H.G. Wells despised this take on his antivivisection tale.

Charles Nichols (Jeroen Krabbé, “The Fugitive,” 1993)

Richard Kimble, a Chicago vascular surgeon, arrives home to find that a man just brutally murdered his loving wife. The killer escapes, and Kimble falls into the frame-up. Convicted for the murder and headed to prison, Kimble breaks free in an epic escape scene. He spends the rest of the movie all but giving his right arm to find the murderer, while being pursued by a dogged U.S. Marshal played with gusto by Tommy Lee Jones. Kimble eventually discovers that his colleague, Dr. Charles Nichols (Jeroen Krabbé), is not quite the best friend a man could have – or the most ethical of clinical investigators.

Elliot and Beverly Mantle (Jeremy Irons, “Dead Ringers,” 1988)

“You’ve got to try the movie star,” fertility specialist Elliot Mantle (Jeremy Irons) implores to his identical but meek twin brother, Beverly (also Jeremy Irons), talking about an actress-patient (Genevieve Bujold) as if she were a menu item. Beverly shares a practice with Elliot, along with a soul and an easily satisfied drug addiction. Beverly is unaware that Elliot seduces patients before passing them off to his brother, including the actress. Beverly is in love with the actress, which upsets the equilibrium of their shared soul. He aims to fix this, but not without some trauma involving freakish and unsanitary operating implements.

Dean Armitage (Bradley Whitford, “Get Out,” 2017)

Neurosurgeon Dean Armitage (Bradley Whitford) was such a fan of President Obama that he would have voted for him a third time if he could. At least, that’s how he portrays himself to Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), an African American photographer and the new boyfriend of Armitage’s White daughter. The Armitage estate has plenty of people of color – on staff, anyway – but Chris finds them odd and distant. It turns out that a gathering of rich White people is in fact an auction for his eyesight. Horror ensues. The main message from this film is not unlike that of Russian operatives who fall out of favor with the Kremlin: Don’t drink the tea.

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

Masks can be scary on Halloween, but more so when they come with scrubs, scalpels, and God complexes. In March, Medscape readers chose their favorite characters and performers in the Hollywood health care system. As a Halloween treat, we follow up with a dozen of our favorite Evil Doctors from a deep bench (and no, Dr Evil didn’t go to medical school; neither did Dr No, for that matter). Before you see these folks who’d rather haunt than heal, we urge you to seek a second opinion.

George Harris (Richard Widmark, “Coma,” 1978)

“Medicine is now a great social force,” says Dr. George Harris (Richard Widmark), chief of surgery at Boston Memorial. Because the public trusts doctors, “we’ll make the hard decisions” – like choosing which young, healthy patients to put into an irreversible coma to harvest their organs. Harris’ audience of one here is Dr. Susan Wheeler (Genevieve Bujold), the upstart who has uncovered his plot, and whom Harris has just drugged to prepare her as his next unintentional donor. “Coma” was based on a bestseller by Robin Cook and directed by Michael Crichton, who left Harvard Medical School for a career in popular books and films, including “The Andromeda Strain” and “Jurassic Park.” Although Dr. Harris starts out as a reassuring friend and mentor to Dr. Wheeler, older moviegoers won’t forget that he launched to stardom by tossing a woman in a wheelchair down the stairs in 1947’s “Kiss of Death.”
 

Christian Szell (Laurence Olivier, “Marathon Man,” 1976)

He may look harmless, but Christian Szell (Laurence Olivier) is a sadist with a secret, a stash, and throat-slitting skills. Szell, a dentist known as the White Angel of Auschwitz for his war crimes, stops at nothing to protect the diamonds he stole from his victims in the camps. In one of Hollywood’s most infamous torture scenes, Szell tries to extract information from Babe Levy (Dustin Hoffman), an innocent grad student, plying the tools of his trade. When Szell asks, “Is it safe?” he’s not curious about whether Babe’s insurance covers anesthesia.

Orin Scrivello (Steve Martin, “Little Shop of Horrors,” 1986)

Sticking with deranged dentists, Orin Scrivello, DDS, (Steve Martin) sings and dances his way into your nightmares buoyed by copious helpings of nitrous oxide. Orin’s too-encouraging momma told him to parlay his sadistic tendencies into a career “where people will pay you to be inhumane.” Sonny listened. Moviegoers were treated to screeching sound effects of a tooth getting yanked during an Elvis-like musical number shot in part from inside a patient’s mouth. Martin makes a creepy scene more fun than a long, slow root canal.

Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive, “Frankenstein,” 1931)

His alarming need for fresh corpses forced Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) to leave medical school and experiment solo in a castle. He insists to his betrothed that he hasn’t gone mad when she arrives as  he is bringing a dead body back to life during a raging lightning storm. When she and Henry’s mentor, Dr Waldman, witness him succeed, Waldman warns Henry that the former owner of the purloined brain was a notorious criminal. When Henry exclaims: “It’s alive, it’s alive !” little did he know that he created the face (Boris Karloff) that would launch a thousand sequels, a spectacular satire, and untold Halloween masks.

Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre, “Mad Love,” 1935)

A few years after playing doctor Frankenstein, Colin Clive became the patient of a mad medic himself. A concert pianist whose hands have been mangled in a train wreck, Clive’s wife turns to Dr. Gogol (Peter Lorre, in his Hollywood debut), who promises to surgically reattach the musician’s hands. Unfortunately, Gogol is so obsessed with the wife, a star of gory stage shows, that he has created a wax figure of her. He schemes to win her in the flesh by attaching a murderer’s hands to Clive, then frame him for committing murder with those hands. Gogol utters the madman’s lament: “I have conquered science. Why can’t I conquer love?” A modern remake would surely have him asking, “Why do they swipe left?

Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins, “Silence of the Lambs,” 1991)

The FBI, hunting for a serial killer, sends trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) to seek insight into the murderer from the imprisoned Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), a brilliant psychiatrist with a penchant for murder — and a taste for the flesh of his victims. Lecter proves to be a menace from their first meeting; the bars and glass surrounding his cell offer Clarice no protection from his gaze and ability to read her mind. In his own way, the urbane, pathologically charming Lecter takes a shine to Clarice, helping with the case while embarking on another murderous spree against men who recently wronged her. When he escapes, his plans do not include dinner with – or of – Clarice, but others, well, they’re not so lucky.

Henry Jekyll (Fredric March, “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde,” 1931)

Henry Jekyll (Fredric March) is a jumble of personalities. By day, he’s a kindly doctor in Victorian London with an American accent. But he is so determined to split good and evil personalities that he devises a potion to outsource his id. As he watches himself morph into Mr. Hyde – a hairy, cone-headed dude in serious need of an orthodontist – he exclaims, “Free! Free at last!” Free, that is, for his simian side to engage in debauchery, abuse, self-hatred, intimations of rape, and ultimately murder – all of which are explored in this pre-Code film, the first talkie version of Robert Louis Stevenson’s story.

Dr. Moreau (Charles Laughton, “Island of Lost Souls,” 1932)

“Strange-looking natives you have here,” shipwreck victim Edward Parker (Richard Arlen) tells his host, the white-suited, whip-wielding Dr Moreau. Before long, we learn that Moreau’s evil veterinary talents  have created an island population of human/beast hybrids who are forced to follow his laws – especially one forbidding them from eating meat or walking on all fours. Lawbreakers get taken to the House of Pain, a medical setting which, as its name suggests, lacks adequate analgesia. Burt Lancaster and Marlon Brando took on the Moreau role in later versions, but Laughton is the creepiest when he asks, “Do you know what it means to feel like God?” The film was banned for years in Britain, and H.G. Wells despised this take on his antivivisection tale.

Charles Nichols (Jeroen Krabbé, “The Fugitive,” 1993)

Richard Kimble, a Chicago vascular surgeon, arrives home to find that a man just brutally murdered his loving wife. The killer escapes, and Kimble falls into the frame-up. Convicted for the murder and headed to prison, Kimble breaks free in an epic escape scene. He spends the rest of the movie all but giving his right arm to find the murderer, while being pursued by a dogged U.S. Marshal played with gusto by Tommy Lee Jones. Kimble eventually discovers that his colleague, Dr. Charles Nichols (Jeroen Krabbé), is not quite the best friend a man could have – or the most ethical of clinical investigators.

Elliot and Beverly Mantle (Jeremy Irons, “Dead Ringers,” 1988)

“You’ve got to try the movie star,” fertility specialist Elliot Mantle (Jeremy Irons) implores to his identical but meek twin brother, Beverly (also Jeremy Irons), talking about an actress-patient (Genevieve Bujold) as if she were a menu item. Beverly shares a practice with Elliot, along with a soul and an easily satisfied drug addiction. Beverly is unaware that Elliot seduces patients before passing them off to his brother, including the actress. Beverly is in love with the actress, which upsets the equilibrium of their shared soul. He aims to fix this, but not without some trauma involving freakish and unsanitary operating implements.

Dean Armitage (Bradley Whitford, “Get Out,” 2017)

Neurosurgeon Dean Armitage (Bradley Whitford) was such a fan of President Obama that he would have voted for him a third time if he could. At least, that’s how he portrays himself to Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), an African American photographer and the new boyfriend of Armitage’s White daughter. The Armitage estate has plenty of people of color – on staff, anyway – but Chris finds them odd and distant. It turns out that a gathering of rich White people is in fact an auction for his eyesight. Horror ensues. The main message from this film is not unlike that of Russian operatives who fall out of favor with the Kremlin: Don’t drink the tea.

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

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of misidentifying you

There are a lot of medical specialties out there. A lot. Everything from allergists to urologists, with something like 150 subspecialties grouped in among the larger specialties. Can you name every one? Do you know what they do?

The point is, telling a patient or anyone in the general public that you’re an ophthalmologist may not be as helpful as you might think, if a recent study is to be believed. In a survey of 204 adults, conducted at the Minnesota State Fair of all places, researchers asked volunteers to define 14 different specialties, as well as five medical seniority titles.

Minerva Studio/ThinkStock

The results were less than stellar. While more than 90% of people correctly defined what cardiologists and dermatologists do, 6 of the other 12 specialists were correctly identified by less than half of those surveyed. Nephrology was at the bottom, correctly identified by just 20% of the fair-attending public, followed by internists (21%), intensivists (29%), hospitalists (31%), pulmonologists (43%), and neonatologists at 48%. The hospitalists are particularly concerning. They’re doctors, but in hospitals. How hard is that? (Yes, it’s obviously more complicated than that, but still.)

The general public didn’t fare much better when it came to correctly lining up the order of progression from medical student to attending. Just 12% managed to place all five in the correct order of med student, intern, senior resident, fellow, then attending, with senior resident proving especially troublesome. More than 40% put senior resident at the end, compared with 27% for attending. Which does make a certain amount of sense, since it has senior in the name.

While the results speak for themselves – maybe elaborate on what the heck your fancy title actually means – it’s too bad the researchers didn’t throw in something really tricky. If two-thirds of the population can’t identify a hospitalist, just imagine how many people would misidentify an otolaryngologist.
 

Beach-to-table sand could fight obesity

People are always looking for the new weight loss solution. Whether it’s to just look good in a new pair of jeans or reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, there are millions of diets and exercise routines out here. We’re here to tell you that the next new therapy to reduce fat comes from a very unsuspecting place: Sand.

David Stanley

Like sand from the beach and desert, sand? Well, yes and no.

The research involved engineered porous silica particles made from sand that are designed to have a high surface area. Investigators used a two-step GI model in which gastric digestion was modeled for 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute intestinal phase, to show that the porous silica particles helped prevent fat and sugar adsorption within the GI tract.

By mimicking the gastrointestinal environment during digestion of a high-fat, high-carb meal, the researchers found that the porous silica created an “anti-obesity effect” by restricting the adsorption of those fats and carbohydrates.

Okay, but how is that on the tummy? Much gentler on the stomach than a drug such as orlistat, said senior researcher Paul Joyce, PhD, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, who noted the lack of effective therapies without side effects, such as bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, that deter people from treatment.

Obesity affects over 1.9 billion people worldwide, so the researchers think this could be a breakthrough. Reducing obesity may be one of the most preventable ways to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other weight-related chronic conditions. A treatment solution this simple could be the answer to this global health crisis.

Who would have thought the solution would be as simple as sand? But how would the sand get in our stomachs? Do we sprinkle it on our food? Mix it in during cooking? Or will the sand come in pill form? We sure hope it’s that third one.
 

I am Reliebo. I am here to help you

Halloween is almost here, and the LOTME staff has been trying to make the office look as scary as possible: Headless vampires, ghost clowns, Ted Cruz, gray tombstones, pink hearts, green clovers, red balloons. Wait a second, those last three are Lucky Charms marshmallows, aren’t they? We’ll use those some other time.

University of Tsukuba

What are we not using to decorate? Well, besides marshmallows from cereal, we’re not using Reliebo. That’s what we’re not using. Reliebo is a cute little fuzzy robot, and is not at all scary. Reliebo was designed to be the opposite of scary. Reliebo “may reduce fear as well as alleviate the perception of pain during medical treatments, including vaccinations,” senior author Fumihide Tanaka, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba (Japan) said in a written statement.

The soft, fur-covered robot contains small airbags that can inflate in response to hand movements. When study participants were subjected to a moderate heat stimulus on one arm, those who held the robot with the other arm experienced less pain than those who did not have a Reliebo.

The results also were encouraging when Dr. Tanaka and associates measured the levels of oxytocin and cortisol (biomarkers for stress) from the subjects’ saliva samples and evaluated their fear of injections and their psychological state before and after the experiments.

After looking at that photo of Reliebo for a while, though, we have to admit that we’re having a bit of a rethink about its cuteness. Is it cute, or weird-looking? An office full of fuzzy little inflating robots just could be seriously creepy. Please don’t tell the rest of the staff about this. We want to surprise them on Monday.

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of misidentifying you

There are a lot of medical specialties out there. A lot. Everything from allergists to urologists, with something like 150 subspecialties grouped in among the larger specialties. Can you name every one? Do you know what they do?

The point is, telling a patient or anyone in the general public that you’re an ophthalmologist may not be as helpful as you might think, if a recent study is to be believed. In a survey of 204 adults, conducted at the Minnesota State Fair of all places, researchers asked volunteers to define 14 different specialties, as well as five medical seniority titles.

Minerva Studio/ThinkStock

The results were less than stellar. While more than 90% of people correctly defined what cardiologists and dermatologists do, 6 of the other 12 specialists were correctly identified by less than half of those surveyed. Nephrology was at the bottom, correctly identified by just 20% of the fair-attending public, followed by internists (21%), intensivists (29%), hospitalists (31%), pulmonologists (43%), and neonatologists at 48%. The hospitalists are particularly concerning. They’re doctors, but in hospitals. How hard is that? (Yes, it’s obviously more complicated than that, but still.)

The general public didn’t fare much better when it came to correctly lining up the order of progression from medical student to attending. Just 12% managed to place all five in the correct order of med student, intern, senior resident, fellow, then attending, with senior resident proving especially troublesome. More than 40% put senior resident at the end, compared with 27% for attending. Which does make a certain amount of sense, since it has senior in the name.

While the results speak for themselves – maybe elaborate on what the heck your fancy title actually means – it’s too bad the researchers didn’t throw in something really tricky. If two-thirds of the population can’t identify a hospitalist, just imagine how many people would misidentify an otolaryngologist.
 

Beach-to-table sand could fight obesity

People are always looking for the new weight loss solution. Whether it’s to just look good in a new pair of jeans or reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, there are millions of diets and exercise routines out here. We’re here to tell you that the next new therapy to reduce fat comes from a very unsuspecting place: Sand.

David Stanley

Like sand from the beach and desert, sand? Well, yes and no.

The research involved engineered porous silica particles made from sand that are designed to have a high surface area. Investigators used a two-step GI model in which gastric digestion was modeled for 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute intestinal phase, to show that the porous silica particles helped prevent fat and sugar adsorption within the GI tract.

By mimicking the gastrointestinal environment during digestion of a high-fat, high-carb meal, the researchers found that the porous silica created an “anti-obesity effect” by restricting the adsorption of those fats and carbohydrates.

Okay, but how is that on the tummy? Much gentler on the stomach than a drug such as orlistat, said senior researcher Paul Joyce, PhD, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, who noted the lack of effective therapies without side effects, such as bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, that deter people from treatment.

Obesity affects over 1.9 billion people worldwide, so the researchers think this could be a breakthrough. Reducing obesity may be one of the most preventable ways to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other weight-related chronic conditions. A treatment solution this simple could be the answer to this global health crisis.

Who would have thought the solution would be as simple as sand? But how would the sand get in our stomachs? Do we sprinkle it on our food? Mix it in during cooking? Or will the sand come in pill form? We sure hope it’s that third one.
 

I am Reliebo. I am here to help you

Halloween is almost here, and the LOTME staff has been trying to make the office look as scary as possible: Headless vampires, ghost clowns, Ted Cruz, gray tombstones, pink hearts, green clovers, red balloons. Wait a second, those last three are Lucky Charms marshmallows, aren’t they? We’ll use those some other time.

University of Tsukuba

What are we not using to decorate? Well, besides marshmallows from cereal, we’re not using Reliebo. That’s what we’re not using. Reliebo is a cute little fuzzy robot, and is not at all scary. Reliebo was designed to be the opposite of scary. Reliebo “may reduce fear as well as alleviate the perception of pain during medical treatments, including vaccinations,” senior author Fumihide Tanaka, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba (Japan) said in a written statement.

The soft, fur-covered robot contains small airbags that can inflate in response to hand movements. When study participants were subjected to a moderate heat stimulus on one arm, those who held the robot with the other arm experienced less pain than those who did not have a Reliebo.

The results also were encouraging when Dr. Tanaka and associates measured the levels of oxytocin and cortisol (biomarkers for stress) from the subjects’ saliva samples and evaluated their fear of injections and their psychological state before and after the experiments.

After looking at that photo of Reliebo for a while, though, we have to admit that we’re having a bit of a rethink about its cuteness. Is it cute, or weird-looking? An office full of fuzzy little inflating robots just could be seriously creepy. Please don’t tell the rest of the staff about this. We want to surprise them on Monday.

Doctor, doctor, gimme the news. I got a bad case of misidentifying you

There are a lot of medical specialties out there. A lot. Everything from allergists to urologists, with something like 150 subspecialties grouped in among the larger specialties. Can you name every one? Do you know what they do?

The point is, telling a patient or anyone in the general public that you’re an ophthalmologist may not be as helpful as you might think, if a recent study is to be believed. In a survey of 204 adults, conducted at the Minnesota State Fair of all places, researchers asked volunteers to define 14 different specialties, as well as five medical seniority titles.

Minerva Studio/ThinkStock

The results were less than stellar. While more than 90% of people correctly defined what cardiologists and dermatologists do, 6 of the other 12 specialists were correctly identified by less than half of those surveyed. Nephrology was at the bottom, correctly identified by just 20% of the fair-attending public, followed by internists (21%), intensivists (29%), hospitalists (31%), pulmonologists (43%), and neonatologists at 48%. The hospitalists are particularly concerning. They’re doctors, but in hospitals. How hard is that? (Yes, it’s obviously more complicated than that, but still.)

The general public didn’t fare much better when it came to correctly lining up the order of progression from medical student to attending. Just 12% managed to place all five in the correct order of med student, intern, senior resident, fellow, then attending, with senior resident proving especially troublesome. More than 40% put senior resident at the end, compared with 27% for attending. Which does make a certain amount of sense, since it has senior in the name.

While the results speak for themselves – maybe elaborate on what the heck your fancy title actually means – it’s too bad the researchers didn’t throw in something really tricky. If two-thirds of the population can’t identify a hospitalist, just imagine how many people would misidentify an otolaryngologist.
 

Beach-to-table sand could fight obesity

People are always looking for the new weight loss solution. Whether it’s to just look good in a new pair of jeans or reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, there are millions of diets and exercise routines out here. We’re here to tell you that the next new therapy to reduce fat comes from a very unsuspecting place: Sand.

David Stanley

Like sand from the beach and desert, sand? Well, yes and no.

The research involved engineered porous silica particles made from sand that are designed to have a high surface area. Investigators used a two-step GI model in which gastric digestion was modeled for 30 minutes, followed by a 60-minute intestinal phase, to show that the porous silica particles helped prevent fat and sugar adsorption within the GI tract.

By mimicking the gastrointestinal environment during digestion of a high-fat, high-carb meal, the researchers found that the porous silica created an “anti-obesity effect” by restricting the adsorption of those fats and carbohydrates.

Okay, but how is that on the tummy? Much gentler on the stomach than a drug such as orlistat, said senior researcher Paul Joyce, PhD, of the University of South Australia, Adelaide, who noted the lack of effective therapies without side effects, such as bloating, diarrhea, and abdominal pain, that deter people from treatment.

Obesity affects over 1.9 billion people worldwide, so the researchers think this could be a breakthrough. Reducing obesity may be one of the most preventable ways to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and other weight-related chronic conditions. A treatment solution this simple could be the answer to this global health crisis.

Who would have thought the solution would be as simple as sand? But how would the sand get in our stomachs? Do we sprinkle it on our food? Mix it in during cooking? Or will the sand come in pill form? We sure hope it’s that third one.
 

I am Reliebo. I am here to help you

Halloween is almost here, and the LOTME staff has been trying to make the office look as scary as possible: Headless vampires, ghost clowns, Ted Cruz, gray tombstones, pink hearts, green clovers, red balloons. Wait a second, those last three are Lucky Charms marshmallows, aren’t they? We’ll use those some other time.

University of Tsukuba

What are we not using to decorate? Well, besides marshmallows from cereal, we’re not using Reliebo. That’s what we’re not using. Reliebo is a cute little fuzzy robot, and is not at all scary. Reliebo was designed to be the opposite of scary. Reliebo “may reduce fear as well as alleviate the perception of pain during medical treatments, including vaccinations,” senior author Fumihide Tanaka, PhD, of the University of Tsukuba (Japan) said in a written statement.

The soft, fur-covered robot contains small airbags that can inflate in response to hand movements. When study participants were subjected to a moderate heat stimulus on one arm, those who held the robot with the other arm experienced less pain than those who did not have a Reliebo.

The results also were encouraging when Dr. Tanaka and associates measured the levels of oxytocin and cortisol (biomarkers for stress) from the subjects’ saliva samples and evaluated their fear of injections and their psychological state before and after the experiments.

After looking at that photo of Reliebo for a while, though, we have to admit that we’re having a bit of a rethink about its cuteness. Is it cute, or weird-looking? An office full of fuzzy little inflating robots just could be seriously creepy. Please don’t tell the rest of the staff about this. We want to surprise them on Monday.

Administering D-cycloserine (DCS) along with transmagnetic stimulation (TMS) may be a promising strategy to improve outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

“The take-home message is that this proof-of-concept study opens up a new avenue of treatment research so that in the future, we may be able to provide our patients with safe and well-tolerated medications and enhance noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for depression,” senior author Alexander McGirr, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

“Once the safety and efficacy of this strategy have been confirmed with larger multisite studies, this could be deployed within existing health care infrastructure,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

Synaptic plasticity

Repetitive transmagnetic stimulation (rTMS) and the more recently developed intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) are noninvasive brain stimulation modalities that have the largest evidence base in improving MDD. Although efficacious, an “unacceptable proportion of patients do not significantly improve” with these approaches, the authors write.

“We believe that iTBS improves depression through a process called synaptic plasticity, or how neurons adapt to stimulation, but we know that synaptic plasticity is impacted by the illness,” Dr. McGirr explained. This “could be the reason that only some patients benefit.”

One potential strategy to enhance neuroplasticity is to administer an adjunctive N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor agonist during stimulation, since the NMDA receptor is a “key regulator of synaptic plasticity,” the authors state. In fact, synaptic plasticity with continuous and intermittent TBS is NMDA-receptor–dependent.

“DCS is an NMDA receptor partial agonist, and so at the low dose we used in our trial (100 mg), it can facilitate NMDA receptor signaling. The hypothesis was that pairing it with iTBS would enhance synaptic plasticity and clinical outcomes,” Dr. McGirr said.

The group’s previous research demonstrated that targeting the NMDA receptor with low-dose DCS “normalizes long-term motor cortex plasticity in individuals with MDD.” It also led to greater persistence of iTBS-induced changes compared to placebo.

However, “a demonstration that these physiological effects have an impact on treatment outcomes is lacking,” the authors note.

To address this gap, the researchers conducted a 4-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 50 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 40.8 [13.4] years; 62% women) were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive either iTBS plus DCS or iTBS plus placebo (n = 25 per group) for the first 2 weeks of the trial, followed by iTBS without an adjunct for the third and fourth weeks.

Participants were required to be experiencing a major depressive episode and to have failed to respond to at least one adequate antidepressant trial or psychotherapy (but not more than four adequate antidepressant trials during the current episode).

Patients with acute suicidality, psychosis, recent substance use disorder, benzodiazepine use, seizures, unstable medical conditions, history of nonresponse to rTMS or electroconvulsive therapy, or comorbid psychiatric conditions, as well as those for whom psychotherapy was initiated within 3 months of enrollment or during the trial, were excluded.

Depression was measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (changes in score constituted the primary outcome) and the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (17-HDRS).

“Secondary outcomes included clinical response, clinical remission, and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores,” the authors state.
 

“Promising” findings

Most participants in the iTBS plus placebo group were White (80%); 12% were Asian, and 8% were classified as “other.” A smaller proportion of participants in the iTBS plus DCS group were White (68%); the next smallest group was Asian (16%), followed by Hispanic (12%), and “other” (4%).

Participants presented with moderate-severe depressive symptoms, as measured by both the HRDS-17 and the MADRS. The placebo and intervention groups had similar scores at baseline. Resting motor threshold did not differ significantly between the groups, either at baseline or between the weeks with and without adjunctive treatment.

Greater improvements in MADRS scores were found in the intervention group than in the placebo groups (mean difference, –6.15 [95% confidence interval, –2.43 to –9.88]; Hedges g, 0.99 [0.34-1.62]).

A larger treatment effect was found after 4 weeks of treatment than after 2 weeks, although the adjuvant was present for the first 2 weeks. “We speculate that, despite ongoing iTBS, this reflects an erosion of the placebo effect, as 15 of 25 participants (60%) in the iTBS plus placebo group plateaued or had a worsening MADRS score, compared with 9 of 25 participants (36%) in the iTBS plus DCS group,” the authors write.

The intervention group showed higher rates of clinical response compared to the placebo group (73.9% vs. 29.3%, respectively), as well as higher rates of clinical remission (39.1% vs. 4.2%, respectively), as reflected in lower CGI-severity ratings and greater CGI-improvement ratings.

There were no serious adverse events during the trial.

The authors note several limitations, including the small sample size and the fact that participants received the adjunctive treatment for only 2 weeks. Longer treatment courses “require dedicated study.” And the short length of the trial (only 4 weeks) meant the difference between “treatment acceleration” and “treatment enhancement” could not be determined.

Nevertheless, the results are “promising” and suggest additional investigation into “intersectional approaches with other dosing regimens and precision medicine targeting approaches,” the authors state.
 

Synergistic approach

Commenting on the study, Scott Aaronson, MD, chief science officer, Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Sheppard Pratt, Towson, Md., called the findings “heartening.” He noted that the study “demonstrates a creative approach of combining an FDA-approved antibiotic with NMDA partial agonist activity – D-cycloserine – with a brief course of iTBS with the aim of enhancing the neuronal plasticity iTBS creates.”

Dr. Aaronson, who is also an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and was not involved with the study, added, “This is an early demonstration of the ability to further exploit neuronal changes from neurostimulation by synergistic use of a pharmacologic intervention.”

The study was supported in part by a Young Investigator Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and the Campus Alberta Innovates Program Chair in Neurostimulation. Dr. McGirr has a patent for PCT/CA2022/050839 pending with MCGRx Corp and is a shareholder of MCGRx Corp. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Aaronson is a consultant for Neuronetics.

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

Administering D-cycloserine (DCS) along with transmagnetic stimulation (TMS) may be a promising strategy to improve outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

“The take-home message is that this proof-of-concept study opens up a new avenue of treatment research so that in the future, we may be able to provide our patients with safe and well-tolerated medications and enhance noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for depression,” senior author Alexander McGirr, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

“Once the safety and efficacy of this strategy have been confirmed with larger multisite studies, this could be deployed within existing health care infrastructure,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

Synaptic plasticity

Repetitive transmagnetic stimulation (rTMS) and the more recently developed intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) are noninvasive brain stimulation modalities that have the largest evidence base in improving MDD. Although efficacious, an “unacceptable proportion of patients do not significantly improve” with these approaches, the authors write.

“We believe that iTBS improves depression through a process called synaptic plasticity, or how neurons adapt to stimulation, but we know that synaptic plasticity is impacted by the illness,” Dr. McGirr explained. This “could be the reason that only some patients benefit.”

One potential strategy to enhance neuroplasticity is to administer an adjunctive N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor agonist during stimulation, since the NMDA receptor is a “key regulator of synaptic plasticity,” the authors state. In fact, synaptic plasticity with continuous and intermittent TBS is NMDA-receptor–dependent.

“DCS is an NMDA receptor partial agonist, and so at the low dose we used in our trial (100 mg), it can facilitate NMDA receptor signaling. The hypothesis was that pairing it with iTBS would enhance synaptic plasticity and clinical outcomes,” Dr. McGirr said.

The group’s previous research demonstrated that targeting the NMDA receptor with low-dose DCS “normalizes long-term motor cortex plasticity in individuals with MDD.” It also led to greater persistence of iTBS-induced changes compared to placebo.

However, “a demonstration that these physiological effects have an impact on treatment outcomes is lacking,” the authors note.

To address this gap, the researchers conducted a 4-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 50 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 40.8 [13.4] years; 62% women) were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive either iTBS plus DCS or iTBS plus placebo (n = 25 per group) for the first 2 weeks of the trial, followed by iTBS without an adjunct for the third and fourth weeks.

Participants were required to be experiencing a major depressive episode and to have failed to respond to at least one adequate antidepressant trial or psychotherapy (but not more than four adequate antidepressant trials during the current episode).

Patients with acute suicidality, psychosis, recent substance use disorder, benzodiazepine use, seizures, unstable medical conditions, history of nonresponse to rTMS or electroconvulsive therapy, or comorbid psychiatric conditions, as well as those for whom psychotherapy was initiated within 3 months of enrollment or during the trial, were excluded.

Depression was measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (changes in score constituted the primary outcome) and the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (17-HDRS).

“Secondary outcomes included clinical response, clinical remission, and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores,” the authors state.
 

“Promising” findings

Most participants in the iTBS plus placebo group were White (80%); 12% were Asian, and 8% were classified as “other.” A smaller proportion of participants in the iTBS plus DCS group were White (68%); the next smallest group was Asian (16%), followed by Hispanic (12%), and “other” (4%).

Participants presented with moderate-severe depressive symptoms, as measured by both the HRDS-17 and the MADRS. The placebo and intervention groups had similar scores at baseline. Resting motor threshold did not differ significantly between the groups, either at baseline or between the weeks with and without adjunctive treatment.

Greater improvements in MADRS scores were found in the intervention group than in the placebo groups (mean difference, –6.15 [95% confidence interval, –2.43 to –9.88]; Hedges g, 0.99 [0.34-1.62]).

A larger treatment effect was found after 4 weeks of treatment than after 2 weeks, although the adjuvant was present for the first 2 weeks. “We speculate that, despite ongoing iTBS, this reflects an erosion of the placebo effect, as 15 of 25 participants (60%) in the iTBS plus placebo group plateaued or had a worsening MADRS score, compared with 9 of 25 participants (36%) in the iTBS plus DCS group,” the authors write.

The intervention group showed higher rates of clinical response compared to the placebo group (73.9% vs. 29.3%, respectively), as well as higher rates of clinical remission (39.1% vs. 4.2%, respectively), as reflected in lower CGI-severity ratings and greater CGI-improvement ratings.

There were no serious adverse events during the trial.

The authors note several limitations, including the small sample size and the fact that participants received the adjunctive treatment for only 2 weeks. Longer treatment courses “require dedicated study.” And the short length of the trial (only 4 weeks) meant the difference between “treatment acceleration” and “treatment enhancement” could not be determined.

Nevertheless, the results are “promising” and suggest additional investigation into “intersectional approaches with other dosing regimens and precision medicine targeting approaches,” the authors state.
 

Synergistic approach

Commenting on the study, Scott Aaronson, MD, chief science officer, Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Sheppard Pratt, Towson, Md., called the findings “heartening.” He noted that the study “demonstrates a creative approach of combining an FDA-approved antibiotic with NMDA partial agonist activity – D-cycloserine – with a brief course of iTBS with the aim of enhancing the neuronal plasticity iTBS creates.”

Dr. Aaronson, who is also an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and was not involved with the study, added, “This is an early demonstration of the ability to further exploit neuronal changes from neurostimulation by synergistic use of a pharmacologic intervention.”

The study was supported in part by a Young Investigator Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and the Campus Alberta Innovates Program Chair in Neurostimulation. Dr. McGirr has a patent for PCT/CA2022/050839 pending with MCGRx Corp and is a shareholder of MCGRx Corp. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Aaronson is a consultant for Neuronetics.

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

Administering D-cycloserine (DCS) along with transmagnetic stimulation (TMS) may be a promising strategy to improve outcomes in major depressive disorder (MDD), new research suggests.

“The take-home message is that this proof-of-concept study opens up a new avenue of treatment research so that in the future, we may be able to provide our patients with safe and well-tolerated medications and enhance noninvasive brain stimulation treatments for depression,” senior author Alexander McGirr, MD, PhD, assistant professor of psychiatry, University of Calgary (Alta.), told this news organization.

“Once the safety and efficacy of this strategy have been confirmed with larger multisite studies, this could be deployed within existing health care infrastructure,” he said.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

Synaptic plasticity

Repetitive transmagnetic stimulation (rTMS) and the more recently developed intermittent theta-burst stimulation (iTBS) are noninvasive brain stimulation modalities that have the largest evidence base in improving MDD. Although efficacious, an “unacceptable proportion of patients do not significantly improve” with these approaches, the authors write.

“We believe that iTBS improves depression through a process called synaptic plasticity, or how neurons adapt to stimulation, but we know that synaptic plasticity is impacted by the illness,” Dr. McGirr explained. This “could be the reason that only some patients benefit.”

One potential strategy to enhance neuroplasticity is to administer an adjunctive N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor agonist during stimulation, since the NMDA receptor is a “key regulator of synaptic plasticity,” the authors state. In fact, synaptic plasticity with continuous and intermittent TBS is NMDA-receptor–dependent.

“DCS is an NMDA receptor partial agonist, and so at the low dose we used in our trial (100 mg), it can facilitate NMDA receptor signaling. The hypothesis was that pairing it with iTBS would enhance synaptic plasticity and clinical outcomes,” Dr. McGirr said.

The group’s previous research demonstrated that targeting the NMDA receptor with low-dose DCS “normalizes long-term motor cortex plasticity in individuals with MDD.” It also led to greater persistence of iTBS-induced changes compared to placebo.

However, “a demonstration that these physiological effects have an impact on treatment outcomes is lacking,” the authors note.

To address this gap, the researchers conducted a 4-week double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 50 participants (mean [standard deviation] age, 40.8 [13.4] years; 62% women) were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis to receive either iTBS plus DCS or iTBS plus placebo (n = 25 per group) for the first 2 weeks of the trial, followed by iTBS without an adjunct for the third and fourth weeks.

Participants were required to be experiencing a major depressive episode and to have failed to respond to at least one adequate antidepressant trial or psychotherapy (but not more than four adequate antidepressant trials during the current episode).

Patients with acute suicidality, psychosis, recent substance use disorder, benzodiazepine use, seizures, unstable medical conditions, history of nonresponse to rTMS or electroconvulsive therapy, or comorbid psychiatric conditions, as well as those for whom psychotherapy was initiated within 3 months of enrollment or during the trial, were excluded.

Depression was measured by the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (changes in score constituted the primary outcome) and the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (17-HDRS).

“Secondary outcomes included clinical response, clinical remission, and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores,” the authors state.
 

“Promising” findings

Most participants in the iTBS plus placebo group were White (80%); 12% were Asian, and 8% were classified as “other.” A smaller proportion of participants in the iTBS plus DCS group were White (68%); the next smallest group was Asian (16%), followed by Hispanic (12%), and “other” (4%).

Participants presented with moderate-severe depressive symptoms, as measured by both the HRDS-17 and the MADRS. The placebo and intervention groups had similar scores at baseline. Resting motor threshold did not differ significantly between the groups, either at baseline or between the weeks with and without adjunctive treatment.

Greater improvements in MADRS scores were found in the intervention group than in the placebo groups (mean difference, –6.15 [95% confidence interval, –2.43 to –9.88]; Hedges g, 0.99 [0.34-1.62]).

A larger treatment effect was found after 4 weeks of treatment than after 2 weeks, although the adjuvant was present for the first 2 weeks. “We speculate that, despite ongoing iTBS, this reflects an erosion of the placebo effect, as 15 of 25 participants (60%) in the iTBS plus placebo group plateaued or had a worsening MADRS score, compared with 9 of 25 participants (36%) in the iTBS plus DCS group,” the authors write.

The intervention group showed higher rates of clinical response compared to the placebo group (73.9% vs. 29.3%, respectively), as well as higher rates of clinical remission (39.1% vs. 4.2%, respectively), as reflected in lower CGI-severity ratings and greater CGI-improvement ratings.

There were no serious adverse events during the trial.

The authors note several limitations, including the small sample size and the fact that participants received the adjunctive treatment for only 2 weeks. Longer treatment courses “require dedicated study.” And the short length of the trial (only 4 weeks) meant the difference between “treatment acceleration” and “treatment enhancement” could not be determined.

Nevertheless, the results are “promising” and suggest additional investigation into “intersectional approaches with other dosing regimens and precision medicine targeting approaches,” the authors state.
 

Synergistic approach

Commenting on the study, Scott Aaronson, MD, chief science officer, Institute for Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutics, Sheppard Pratt, Towson, Md., called the findings “heartening.” He noted that the study “demonstrates a creative approach of combining an FDA-approved antibiotic with NMDA partial agonist activity – D-cycloserine – with a brief course of iTBS with the aim of enhancing the neuronal plasticity iTBS creates.”

Dr. Aaronson, who is also an adjunct professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and was not involved with the study, added, “This is an early demonstration of the ability to further exploit neuronal changes from neurostimulation by synergistic use of a pharmacologic intervention.”

The study was supported in part by a Young Investigator Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and the Campus Alberta Innovates Program Chair in Neurostimulation. Dr. McGirr has a patent for PCT/CA2022/050839 pending with MCGRx Corp and is a shareholder of MCGRx Corp. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original article. Dr. Aaronson is a consultant for Neuronetics.

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

This article was originally published on MediQuality.com, an online service for health care professionals in the Benelux and a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Performing euthanasia for “mental suffering that cannot be alleviated” is still considered an extraordinary measure in Belgium. Indeed, fewer than 2% of the requests for euthanasia fall within that category, and few such requests are made by young patients.

There is no doubt that people will talk about the case of Shanti De Corte not only because of the reason stated in her euthanasia request but also because someone so young was able to meet the strict conditions required for the law to be applicable. It’s something that Belgian broadcaster RTBF brought up during a recent episode of #Investigation, which reported on the aftermath of the 2016 Brussels attacks.

On May 7, surrounded by her family, Ms. De Corte was euthanized. She was 23 years old. Six years earlier, on March 22, 2016, Ms. De Corte had been at Brussels Airport when terrorists set off bombs. She was in the departures area with 90 other students from Sint-Rita Campus College, located in the northern town of Kontich. Ms. De Corte was only a few meters away from the blast. Although she was not physically injured, the Flemish teen was traumatized by the attack. This was confirmed by the school psychologist who treated the students. “There were some students who reacted worse than others to these traumatic events. And having had two discussions with Shanti, I can tell you that she was one of these students who were more sensitive to the effects. To me, it’s quite clear. Even before the attacks, she’d experienced serious psychological issues. Therefore, I referred her for psychiatric care.”
 

Eleven antidepressants daily

A few weeks after that March day, Ms. De Corte was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Antwerp. It was a place she knew well, having been an inpatient there several times before the attacks. Ms. De Corte was treated with antidepressants. She shared her thoughts about them on numerous occasions. “I get several drugs at breakfast and up to 11 antidepressants a day. I couldn’t do without them. With all the drugs I take, I feel like a ghost who doesn’t feel anything anymore. Perhaps there were solutions other than the drugs.”

It was a brief respite. In 2020, Ms. De Corte attempted suicide. Her spirits were at their lowest. She was heavily medicated, and her medication had been increased over time. She turned down therapeutic help that was offered by a therapist who specializes in treating the victims of the Brussels attacks. The student got in touch with the Life End Information Forum, an association that supports the right to die with dignity. In April 2022, Ms. De Corte submitted a new euthanasia request, stating that she was in a medically futile condition of mental suffering. Two psychiatrists granted their approval.
 

A small proportion

Last March, Belgium’s Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia reported on data from 2021. “There continues to be a very small number of euthanasia requests that cite mental and behavioral disorders (psychiatric conditions, such as personality disorders, and cognitive issues, like Alzheimer’s disease, are included in this group): 1.9% of all cases of euthanasia. Like all euthanasia files, these requests meet the legal conditions (the patient is legally competent, the request is in writing, the condition is medically futile, and the suffering – which is constant, unbearable, and cannot be alleviated – results from a serious and incurable disorder; the request is well-considered and repeated),” the report states.

This article was translated from MediQuality and appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on MediQuality.com, an online service for health care professionals in the Benelux and a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Performing euthanasia for “mental suffering that cannot be alleviated” is still considered an extraordinary measure in Belgium. Indeed, fewer than 2% of the requests for euthanasia fall within that category, and few such requests are made by young patients.

There is no doubt that people will talk about the case of Shanti De Corte not only because of the reason stated in her euthanasia request but also because someone so young was able to meet the strict conditions required for the law to be applicable. It’s something that Belgian broadcaster RTBF brought up during a recent episode of #Investigation, which reported on the aftermath of the 2016 Brussels attacks.

On May 7, surrounded by her family, Ms. De Corte was euthanized. She was 23 years old. Six years earlier, on March 22, 2016, Ms. De Corte had been at Brussels Airport when terrorists set off bombs. She was in the departures area with 90 other students from Sint-Rita Campus College, located in the northern town of Kontich. Ms. De Corte was only a few meters away from the blast. Although she was not physically injured, the Flemish teen was traumatized by the attack. This was confirmed by the school psychologist who treated the students. “There were some students who reacted worse than others to these traumatic events. And having had two discussions with Shanti, I can tell you that she was one of these students who were more sensitive to the effects. To me, it’s quite clear. Even before the attacks, she’d experienced serious psychological issues. Therefore, I referred her for psychiatric care.”
 

Eleven antidepressants daily

A few weeks after that March day, Ms. De Corte was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Antwerp. It was a place she knew well, having been an inpatient there several times before the attacks. Ms. De Corte was treated with antidepressants. She shared her thoughts about them on numerous occasions. “I get several drugs at breakfast and up to 11 antidepressants a day. I couldn’t do without them. With all the drugs I take, I feel like a ghost who doesn’t feel anything anymore. Perhaps there were solutions other than the drugs.”

It was a brief respite. In 2020, Ms. De Corte attempted suicide. Her spirits were at their lowest. She was heavily medicated, and her medication had been increased over time. She turned down therapeutic help that was offered by a therapist who specializes in treating the victims of the Brussels attacks. The student got in touch with the Life End Information Forum, an association that supports the right to die with dignity. In April 2022, Ms. De Corte submitted a new euthanasia request, stating that she was in a medically futile condition of mental suffering. Two psychiatrists granted their approval.
 

A small proportion

Last March, Belgium’s Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia reported on data from 2021. “There continues to be a very small number of euthanasia requests that cite mental and behavioral disorders (psychiatric conditions, such as personality disorders, and cognitive issues, like Alzheimer’s disease, are included in this group): 1.9% of all cases of euthanasia. Like all euthanasia files, these requests meet the legal conditions (the patient is legally competent, the request is in writing, the condition is medically futile, and the suffering – which is constant, unbearable, and cannot be alleviated – results from a serious and incurable disorder; the request is well-considered and repeated),” the report states.

This article was translated from MediQuality and appeared on Medscape.com.

This article was originally published on MediQuality.com, an online service for health care professionals in the Benelux and a member of the Medscape Professional Network.

Performing euthanasia for “mental suffering that cannot be alleviated” is still considered an extraordinary measure in Belgium. Indeed, fewer than 2% of the requests for euthanasia fall within that category, and few such requests are made by young patients.

There is no doubt that people will talk about the case of Shanti De Corte not only because of the reason stated in her euthanasia request but also because someone so young was able to meet the strict conditions required for the law to be applicable. It’s something that Belgian broadcaster RTBF brought up during a recent episode of #Investigation, which reported on the aftermath of the 2016 Brussels attacks.

On May 7, surrounded by her family, Ms. De Corte was euthanized. She was 23 years old. Six years earlier, on March 22, 2016, Ms. De Corte had been at Brussels Airport when terrorists set off bombs. She was in the departures area with 90 other students from Sint-Rita Campus College, located in the northern town of Kontich. Ms. De Corte was only a few meters away from the blast. Although she was not physically injured, the Flemish teen was traumatized by the attack. This was confirmed by the school psychologist who treated the students. “There were some students who reacted worse than others to these traumatic events. And having had two discussions with Shanti, I can tell you that she was one of these students who were more sensitive to the effects. To me, it’s quite clear. Even before the attacks, she’d experienced serious psychological issues. Therefore, I referred her for psychiatric care.”
 

Eleven antidepressants daily

A few weeks after that March day, Ms. De Corte was admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Antwerp. It was a place she knew well, having been an inpatient there several times before the attacks. Ms. De Corte was treated with antidepressants. She shared her thoughts about them on numerous occasions. “I get several drugs at breakfast and up to 11 antidepressants a day. I couldn’t do without them. With all the drugs I take, I feel like a ghost who doesn’t feel anything anymore. Perhaps there were solutions other than the drugs.”

It was a brief respite. In 2020, Ms. De Corte attempted suicide. Her spirits were at their lowest. She was heavily medicated, and her medication had been increased over time. She turned down therapeutic help that was offered by a therapist who specializes in treating the victims of the Brussels attacks. The student got in touch with the Life End Information Forum, an association that supports the right to die with dignity. In April 2022, Ms. De Corte submitted a new euthanasia request, stating that she was in a medically futile condition of mental suffering. Two psychiatrists granted their approval.
 

A small proportion

Last March, Belgium’s Federal Commission for the Control and Evaluation of Euthanasia reported on data from 2021. “There continues to be a very small number of euthanasia requests that cite mental and behavioral disorders (psychiatric conditions, such as personality disorders, and cognitive issues, like Alzheimer’s disease, are included in this group): 1.9% of all cases of euthanasia. Like all euthanasia files, these requests meet the legal conditions (the patient is legally competent, the request is in writing, the condition is medically futile, and the suffering – which is constant, unbearable, and cannot be alleviated – results from a serious and incurable disorder; the request is well-considered and repeated),” the report states.

This article was translated from MediQuality and appeared on Medscape.com.