Clinical Psychiatry News

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Researchers have identified 72 genes very strongly linked to autism spectrum disorders and more than 250 other genes with a strong link to ASD, according to a study published in Nature Genetics. The findings, based on analysis of more than 150,000 people’s genetics, arose from a collaboration of five research groups whose work included comparisons of ASD cohorts with separate cohorts of individuals with developmental delay or schizophrenia.

“We know that many genes, when mutated, contribute to autism,” and this study brought together “multiple types of mutations in a wide array of samples to get a much richer sense of the genes and genetic architecture involved in autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions,” co–senior author Joseph D. Buxbaum, PhD, director of the Seaver Autism Center for Research and Treatment at Mount Sinai and a professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York, said in a prepared statement. “This is significant in that we now have more insights as to the biology of the brain changes that underlie autism and more potential targets for treatment.”

Glen Elliott, PhD, MD, a clinical professor of psychiatry at Stanford (Calif.) University who was not involved in the study, said the paper is important paper for informing clinicians of where the basic research is headed. “We’re still in for a long road” before it bears fruit in terms of therapeutics. The value of studies like these, that investigate which genes are most associated with ASD, is that they may lead toward understanding the pathways in the brain that give rise to certain symptoms of ASD, which can then become therapeutic targets, Dr. Elliott said.
 

Investigating large cohorts

The researchers analyzed genetic exome sequencing data from 33 ASD cohorts with a total of 63,237 people and then compared these data with another cohort of people with developmental delay and a cohort of people with schizophrenia. The combined ASD cohorts included 15,036 individuals with ASD, 28,522 parents, and 5,492 unaffected siblings. The remaining participants were 5,591 people with ASD and 8,597 matched controls from case control studies.

In the ASD cohorts, the researchers identified 72 genes that were associated with ASD. De novo variants were eight times more likely in cases (4%) than in controls (0.5%). Ten genes occurred at least twice in ASD cases but never occurred in unaffected siblings.

Then the researchers integrated these ASD genetic data with a cohort of 91,605 people that included 31,058 people with developmental delay and their parents. Substantial overlap with gene mutations existed between these two cohorts: 70.1% of the genes related to developmental delay appeared linked to risk for ASD, and 86.6% of genes associated with ASD risk also had associations with developmental delay. Overall, the researchers identified 373 genes strongly associated with ASD and/or developmental delay and 664 genes with a likely association.

“Isolating genes that exert a greater effect on ASD than they do on other developmental delays has remained challenging due to the frequent comorbidity of these phenotypes,” wrote lead author Jack M. Fu, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, and colleagues. “Still, an estimated 13.4% of the transmission and de novo association–ASD genes show little evidence for association in the developmental delay cohort.”
 

ASD, developmental delay, and schizophrenia

When the researchers compared the cells where the genetic mutations occurred in fetal brains, they found that genes associated with developmental delay more often occurred in less differentiated cell types – less mature cells in the developmental process. Gene mutations associated with ASD, on the other hand, occurred in more mature cell types, particularly in maturing excitatory neurons and related cells.

”Our results are consistent with developmental delay-predominant genes being expressed earlier in development and in less differentiated cells than ASD-predominant genes,” they wrote.

The researchers also compared the specific gene mutations found in these two cohorts with a previously published set of 244 genes associated with schizophrenia. Of these, 234 genes are among those with a transmission and de novo association to ASD and/or developmental delay. Of the 72 genes linked to ASD, eight appear in the set of genes linked to schizophrenia, and 61 were associated with developmental delay, though these two subsets do not overlap each other much.

“The ASD-schizophrenia overlap was significantly enriched, while the developmental delay-schizophrenia overlap was not,” they reported. ”Together, these data suggest that one subset of ASD risk genes may overlap developmental delay while a different subset overlaps schizophrenia.”
 

Chasing therapy targets by backtracking through genes

The findings are a substantial step forward in understanding the potential genetic contribution to ASD, but they also highlight the challenges of eventually trying to use this information in a clinically meaningful way.

“Given the substantial overlap between the genes implicated in neurodevelopmental disorders writ large and those implicated directly in ASD, disentangling the relative impact of individual genes on neurodevelopment and phenotypic spectra is a daunting yet important challenge,” the researchers wrote. “To identify the key neurobiological features of ASD will likely require convergence of evidence from many ASD genes and studies.”

Dr. Elliott said the biggest takeaway from this study is a better understanding of how the paradigm has shifted away from finding “one gene” for autism or a cure based on genetics and more toward understanding the pathophysiology of symptoms that can point to therapies for better management of the condition.

“Basic researchers have completely changed the strategy for trying to understand the biology of major disorders,” including, in this case, autism, Dr. Elliott said. “The intent is to try to find the underlying systems [in the brain] by backtracking through genes. Meanwhile, given that scientists have made substantial progress in identifying genes that have specific effects on brain development, “the hope is that will mesh with this kind of research, to begin to identify systems that might ultimately be targets for treating.”

The end goal is to be able to offer targeted approaches, based on the pathways causing a symptom, which can be linked backward to a gene.

”So this is not going to offer an immediate cure – it’s probably not going to offer a cure at all – but it may actually lead to much more targeted medications than we currently have for specific types of symptoms within the autism spectrum,” Dr. Elliott said. “What they’re trying to do, ultimately, is to say, when this system is really badly affected because of a genetic abnormality, even though that genetic abnormality is very rare, it leads to these specific kinds of symptoms. If we can find out the neuroregulators underlying that change, then that would be the target, even if that gene were not present.”

The research was funded by the Simons Foundation for Autism Research Initiative, the SPARK project, the National Human Genome Research Institute Home, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Child Health and Development, AMED, and the Beatrice and Samuel Seaver Foundation. Five authors reported financial disclosures linked to Desitin, Roche, BioMarin, BrigeBio Pharma, Illumina, Levo Therapeutics, and Microsoft.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Something about this COVID testing smells fishy

The Chinese have been challenging America’s political and economic hegemony (yes, we did have to look that one up – you’re rude to ask) for some time, but now they’ve gone too far. Are we going to just sit here and let China do something more ridiculous than us in response to COVID? No way!

Alexander Zvir/Pexels

Here’s the deal: The government of the Chinese coastal city of Xiamen has decided that it’s not just the workers on returning fishing boats who have the potential to introduce COVID to the rest of the population. The fish also present a problem. So when the authorities say that everyone needs to be tested before they can enter the city, they mean everyone.

An employee of the municipal ocean development bureau told local media that “all people in Xiamen City need nucleic acid testing, and the fish catches must be tested as well,” according to the Guardian, which also said that “TV news reports showed officials swabbing the mouths of fish and the underside of crabs.”

In the words of George Takei: “Oh my.”

Hold on there a second, George Takei, because we here in the good old US of A have still got Los Angeles, where COVID testing also has taken a nonhuman turn. The LA County public health department recently announced that pets are now eligible for a free SARS-CoV-2 test through veterinarians and other animal care facilities.

“Our goal is to test many different species of animals including wildlife (deer, bats, raccoons), pets (dogs, cats, hamsters, pocket pets), marine mammals (seals), and more,” Veterinary Public Health announced.

Hegemony restored.
 

Not even God could save them from worms

The Dark Ages may not have been as dark and violent as many people think, but there’s no denying that life in medieval Europe kind of sucked. The only real alternative to serfdom was a job with the Catholic Church. Medieval friars, for example, lived in stone buildings, had access to fresh fruits and vegetables, and even had latrines and running water. Luxuries compared with the life of the average peasant.

Cambridge Archaeological Unit

So why then, despite having access to more modern sanitation and amenities, did the friars have so many gut parasites? That’s the question raised by a group of researchers from the University of Cambridge, who conducted a study of 19 medieval friars buried at a local friary (Oh, doesn’t your town have one of those?) and 25 local people buried at a nonreligious cemetery during a similar time period. Of those 19 friars, 11 were infected with worms and parasites, compared with just 8 of 25 townspeople.

This doesn’t make a lot of sense. The friars had a good life by old-time standards: They had basic sanitation down and a solid diet. These things should lead to a healthier population. The problem, the researchers found, is two pronged and a vicious cycle. First off, the friars had plenty of fresh food, but they used human feces to fertilize their produce. There’s a reason modern practice for human waste fertilization is to let the waste compost for 6 months: The waiting period allows the parasites a chance to kindly die off, which prevents reinfection.

Secondly, the friars’ diet of fresh fruits and vegetables mixed together into a salad, while appealing to our modern-day sensibilities, was not a great choice. By comparison, laypeople tended to eat a boiled mishmash of whatever they could find, and while that’s kind of gross, the key here is that their food was cooked. And heat kills parasites. The uncooked salads did no such thing, so the monks ate infected food, expelled infected poop, and grew more infected food with their infected poop.

Once the worms arrived, they never left, making them the worst kind of house guest. Read the room, worms, take your dinner and move on. You don’t have to go home, but you can’t stay here.
 

What’s a shared genotype between friends?

Do you find it hard to tell the difference between Katy Perry and Zooey Deschanel? They look alike, but they’re not related. Or are they? According to new research, people who look and act very similar but are not related may share DNA.

François Brunelle

“Our study provides a rare insight into human likeness by showing that people with extreme look-alike faces share common genotypes, whereas they are discordant at the epigenome and microbiome levels,” senior author Manel Esteller of the Josep Carreras Leukemia Research Institute in Barcelona said in a written statement. “Genomics clusters them together, and the rest sets them apart.”

The Internet has been a great source in being able to find look-alikes. The research team found photos of doppelgangers photographed by François Brunelle, a Canadian artist. Using facial recognition algorithms, the investigators were able to measure likeness between the each pair of look-alikes. The participants also completed a questionnaire about lifestyle and provided a saliva sample.

The results showed that the look-alikes had similar genotypes but different DNA methylation and microbiome landscapes. The look-alikes also seemed to have similarities in weight, height, and behaviors such as smoking, proving that doppelgangers not only look alike but also share common interests.

Next time someone tells you that you look like their best friend Steve, you won’t have to wonder much what Steve is like.
 

The secret to a good relationship? It’s a secret

Strong relationships are built on honesty and trust, right? Being open with your partner and/or friends is usually a good practice for keeping the relationship healthy, but the latest evidence suggests that maybe you shouldn’t share everything.

bilderlounge

According to the first known study on the emotional, behavioral, and relational aspect of consumer behavior, not disclosing certain purchases to your partner can actually be a good thing for the relationship. How? Well, it all has to do with guilt.

In a series of studies, the researchers asked couples about their secret consumptions. The most commonly hidden thing by far was a product (65%).

“We found that 90% of people have recently kept everyday consumer behaviors a secret from a close other – like a friend or spouse – even though they also report that they don’t think their partner would care if they knew about it,” Kelley Gullo Wight, one of the study’s two lead authors, said in a written statement.

Keeping a hidden stash of chocolate produces guilt, which the researchers found to be the key factor, making the perpetrator want to do more in the relationship to ease that sense of betrayal or dishonesty. They called it a “greater relationship investment,” meaning the person is more likely to do a little extra for their partner, like shell out more money for the next anniversary gift or yield to watching their partner’s favorite program.

So don’t feel too bad about that secret Amazon purchase. As long as the other person doesn’t see the box, nobody has to know. Your relationship can only improve.

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) using a home-based device can help improve attention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who are not taking stimulants, new research suggests.

Results from the sham-controlled trial also showed that the tDCS treatment was both safe and well tolerated.

Overall, the findings suggest that the device could be a nondrug alternative for treating this patient population, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues note.

“This is particularly relevant since a vast body of literature describes low long-term adherence rates and persistence to pharmacological treatment in patients with ADHD,” they write.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Avoiding office visits

A noninvasive technique that is easy to use and relatively inexpensive, tDCS involves applying a low-intensity current over the scalp to modulate cortical excitability and induce neuroplasticity. Home-use tDCS devices, which avoid the need for daily office visits for stimulation sessions, have been validated in previous clinical samples.

The current study included 64 adults with ADHD who are not taking stimulants. They had moderate or severe symptoms of inattention, with an inattention score of 21 or higher on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS).

The CASRS includes nine questions related to inattention symptoms (CASRS-I) and nine related to hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms (CASRS-HI). The score can vary from 0 to 36 for each domain, with higher scores indicating increased symptoms.

Researchers randomly assigned participants to receive either active or sham stimulation.

The tDCS device used in the study delivered a current with 35-cm² electrodes (7 cm by 5 cm). The anodal and cathodal electrodes were positioned corresponding to the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), respectively.

The investigators note that decreased activation in the right DLPFC has been reported before in patients with ADHD during tasks that require attention.

After learning to use the device, participants underwent 30-minute daily sessions of tDCS (2-mA direct constant current) for 4 weeks for a total of 28 sessions.

Devices programmed for sham treatment delivered a 30-second ramp-up (0-2 mA) stimulation followed by a 30-second ramp-down (2-0 mA) at the beginning, middle, and end of the application. This mimicked the tactile sensations reported with tDCS and has been shown to be a reliable sham protocol.

Participants were encouraged to perform the stimulation sessions at the same time of day. To improve adherence, they received daily text message reminders.

Nine patients discontinued treatment, two in the sham group and seven in the active group. However, patients who finished the trial completed a mean 25 of 28 sessions.
 

Window of opportunity?

The mean inattention score on CASRS-I at week 4, the primary outcome, was 18.88 in the active tDCS group vs. 23.63 in the sham tDCS group. There was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for CASRS-I (beta interaction, –3.18; 95% confidence interval, –4.60 to –1.75; P < .001), showing decreased inattention symptoms in the active vs. sham groups.

The estimated Cohen’s d was 1.23 (95% CI, .67-1.78), indicating at least a moderate effect. This effect was similar to that reported with trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS), the first approved device-based therapy for ADHD, and to that of atomoxetine, the second-line treatment for ADHD, the researchers note.

About one-third of patients (34.3%) in the active tDCS group achieved a 30% reduction in CASRS-I score, compared with 6.2% in the sham tDCS group.

There was no statistically significant difference in the secondary outcome of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms evaluated with the CASRS-HI. This may be because hyperactivity-impulsivity in ADHD is associated with a hypoactivation in the right inferior frontal cortex rather than the right DLPFC, the investigators write.

There were also no significant group differences in other secondary outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and executive function.

Adverse events (AE) were mostly mild and included skin redness and scalp burn. There were no severe or serious AEs.

Using a home-based tDCS device allows for considerably more sessions, with 28 being the highest number so far applied to patients with ADHD. This, the researchers note, is important because evidence suggests increased efficacy of tDCS with extended periods of treatment.

The home-based device “opens a new window of opportunity, especially for participants who live in geographically remote areas or have physical or cognitive disabilities that may hinder access to clinical centers,” they write.

Although a study limitation was the relatively high dropout rate in the active group, which might bias interpretation of the findings, only two of seven dropouts in the active group left because of an AE, the investigators note.

Patients received training in using the device, but there was no remote monitoring of sessions. In addition, the study population, which was relatively homogeneous with participants having no moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, differed from the usual patients with ADHD who are treated in clinical centers, the researchers point out.

As well, the study included only patients not taking pharmacologic treatment for ADHD – so the findings might not be generalizable to other patients, they add.
 

‘Just a first step’

Commenting on the study, Mark George, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that although this was a single-center study with a relatively small sample size, it is still important.

Showing it is possible to do high-quality tDCS studies at home “is a huge advance,” said Dr. George, who was not involved with the research.

“Home treatment is cheaper and easier for patients and allows many people to get treatment who would not be able to make it to the clinic daily for treatment,” he added.

He noted the study showed “a clear improvement in ADHD,” which is important because better treatments are needed.

However, he cautioned that this is “just a first step” and more studies are needed. For example, he said, it is not clear whether improvements persist and if patients need to self-treat forever, as they would with a medication.

Dr. George also noted that although the study used “a pioneering research device” with several safety features, many home-based tDCS devices on the market do not have those.

“I don’t advise patients to do this now. Further studies are needed for FDA approval and general public use,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, and the Brazilian Innovation Agency. Dr. Leffa reported having received grants from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul during the conduction of the study. Dr. George reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) using a home-based device can help improve attention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who are not taking stimulants, new research suggests.

Results from the sham-controlled trial also showed that the tDCS treatment was both safe and well tolerated.

Overall, the findings suggest that the device could be a nondrug alternative for treating this patient population, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues note.

“This is particularly relevant since a vast body of literature describes low long-term adherence rates and persistence to pharmacological treatment in patients with ADHD,” they write.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Avoiding office visits

A noninvasive technique that is easy to use and relatively inexpensive, tDCS involves applying a low-intensity current over the scalp to modulate cortical excitability and induce neuroplasticity. Home-use tDCS devices, which avoid the need for daily office visits for stimulation sessions, have been validated in previous clinical samples.

The current study included 64 adults with ADHD who are not taking stimulants. They had moderate or severe symptoms of inattention, with an inattention score of 21 or higher on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS).

The CASRS includes nine questions related to inattention symptoms (CASRS-I) and nine related to hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms (CASRS-HI). The score can vary from 0 to 36 for each domain, with higher scores indicating increased symptoms.

Researchers randomly assigned participants to receive either active or sham stimulation.

The tDCS device used in the study delivered a current with 35-cm² electrodes (7 cm by 5 cm). The anodal and cathodal electrodes were positioned corresponding to the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), respectively.

The investigators note that decreased activation in the right DLPFC has been reported before in patients with ADHD during tasks that require attention.

After learning to use the device, participants underwent 30-minute daily sessions of tDCS (2-mA direct constant current) for 4 weeks for a total of 28 sessions.

Devices programmed for sham treatment delivered a 30-second ramp-up (0-2 mA) stimulation followed by a 30-second ramp-down (2-0 mA) at the beginning, middle, and end of the application. This mimicked the tactile sensations reported with tDCS and has been shown to be a reliable sham protocol.

Participants were encouraged to perform the stimulation sessions at the same time of day. To improve adherence, they received daily text message reminders.

Nine patients discontinued treatment, two in the sham group and seven in the active group. However, patients who finished the trial completed a mean 25 of 28 sessions.
 

Window of opportunity?

The mean inattention score on CASRS-I at week 4, the primary outcome, was 18.88 in the active tDCS group vs. 23.63 in the sham tDCS group. There was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for CASRS-I (beta interaction, –3.18; 95% confidence interval, –4.60 to –1.75; P < .001), showing decreased inattention symptoms in the active vs. sham groups.

The estimated Cohen’s d was 1.23 (95% CI, .67-1.78), indicating at least a moderate effect. This effect was similar to that reported with trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS), the first approved device-based therapy for ADHD, and to that of atomoxetine, the second-line treatment for ADHD, the researchers note.

About one-third of patients (34.3%) in the active tDCS group achieved a 30% reduction in CASRS-I score, compared with 6.2% in the sham tDCS group.

There was no statistically significant difference in the secondary outcome of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms evaluated with the CASRS-HI. This may be because hyperactivity-impulsivity in ADHD is associated with a hypoactivation in the right inferior frontal cortex rather than the right DLPFC, the investigators write.

There were also no significant group differences in other secondary outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and executive function.

Adverse events (AE) were mostly mild and included skin redness and scalp burn. There were no severe or serious AEs.

Using a home-based tDCS device allows for considerably more sessions, with 28 being the highest number so far applied to patients with ADHD. This, the researchers note, is important because evidence suggests increased efficacy of tDCS with extended periods of treatment.

The home-based device “opens a new window of opportunity, especially for participants who live in geographically remote areas or have physical or cognitive disabilities that may hinder access to clinical centers,” they write.

Although a study limitation was the relatively high dropout rate in the active group, which might bias interpretation of the findings, only two of seven dropouts in the active group left because of an AE, the investigators note.

Patients received training in using the device, but there was no remote monitoring of sessions. In addition, the study population, which was relatively homogeneous with participants having no moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, differed from the usual patients with ADHD who are treated in clinical centers, the researchers point out.

As well, the study included only patients not taking pharmacologic treatment for ADHD – so the findings might not be generalizable to other patients, they add.
 

‘Just a first step’

Commenting on the study, Mark George, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that although this was a single-center study with a relatively small sample size, it is still important.

Showing it is possible to do high-quality tDCS studies at home “is a huge advance,” said Dr. George, who was not involved with the research.

“Home treatment is cheaper and easier for patients and allows many people to get treatment who would not be able to make it to the clinic daily for treatment,” he added.

He noted the study showed “a clear improvement in ADHD,” which is important because better treatments are needed.

However, he cautioned that this is “just a first step” and more studies are needed. For example, he said, it is not clear whether improvements persist and if patients need to self-treat forever, as they would with a medication.

Dr. George also noted that although the study used “a pioneering research device” with several safety features, many home-based tDCS devices on the market do not have those.

“I don’t advise patients to do this now. Further studies are needed for FDA approval and general public use,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, and the Brazilian Innovation Agency. Dr. Leffa reported having received grants from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul during the conduction of the study. Dr. George reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) using a home-based device can help improve attention in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder who are not taking stimulants, new research suggests.

Results from the sham-controlled trial also showed that the tDCS treatment was both safe and well tolerated.

Overall, the findings suggest that the device could be a nondrug alternative for treating this patient population, Douglas Teixeira Leffa, MD, PhD, department of psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil, and colleagues note.

“This is particularly relevant since a vast body of literature describes low long-term adherence rates and persistence to pharmacological treatment in patients with ADHD,” they write.

The findings were published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Avoiding office visits

A noninvasive technique that is easy to use and relatively inexpensive, tDCS involves applying a low-intensity current over the scalp to modulate cortical excitability and induce neuroplasticity. Home-use tDCS devices, which avoid the need for daily office visits for stimulation sessions, have been validated in previous clinical samples.

The current study included 64 adults with ADHD who are not taking stimulants. They had moderate or severe symptoms of inattention, with an inattention score of 21 or higher on the clinician-administered Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale version 1.1 (CASRS).

The CASRS includes nine questions related to inattention symptoms (CASRS-I) and nine related to hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms (CASRS-HI). The score can vary from 0 to 36 for each domain, with higher scores indicating increased symptoms.

Researchers randomly assigned participants to receive either active or sham stimulation.

The tDCS device used in the study delivered a current with 35-cm² electrodes (7 cm by 5 cm). The anodal and cathodal electrodes were positioned corresponding to the right and left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), respectively.

The investigators note that decreased activation in the right DLPFC has been reported before in patients with ADHD during tasks that require attention.

After learning to use the device, participants underwent 30-minute daily sessions of tDCS (2-mA direct constant current) for 4 weeks for a total of 28 sessions.

Devices programmed for sham treatment delivered a 30-second ramp-up (0-2 mA) stimulation followed by a 30-second ramp-down (2-0 mA) at the beginning, middle, and end of the application. This mimicked the tactile sensations reported with tDCS and has been shown to be a reliable sham protocol.

Participants were encouraged to perform the stimulation sessions at the same time of day. To improve adherence, they received daily text message reminders.

Nine patients discontinued treatment, two in the sham group and seven in the active group. However, patients who finished the trial completed a mean 25 of 28 sessions.
 

Window of opportunity?

The mean inattention score on CASRS-I at week 4, the primary outcome, was 18.88 in the active tDCS group vs. 23.63 in the sham tDCS group. There was a statistically significant treatment by time interaction for CASRS-I (beta interaction, –3.18; 95% confidence interval, –4.60 to –1.75; P < .001), showing decreased inattention symptoms in the active vs. sham groups.

The estimated Cohen’s d was 1.23 (95% CI, .67-1.78), indicating at least a moderate effect. This effect was similar to that reported with trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS), the first approved device-based therapy for ADHD, and to that of atomoxetine, the second-line treatment for ADHD, the researchers note.

About one-third of patients (34.3%) in the active tDCS group achieved a 30% reduction in CASRS-I score, compared with 6.2% in the sham tDCS group.

There was no statistically significant difference in the secondary outcome of hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms evaluated with the CASRS-HI. This may be because hyperactivity-impulsivity in ADHD is associated with a hypoactivation in the right inferior frontal cortex rather than the right DLPFC, the investigators write.

There were also no significant group differences in other secondary outcomes, including depression, anxiety, and executive function.

Adverse events (AE) were mostly mild and included skin redness and scalp burn. There were no severe or serious AEs.

Using a home-based tDCS device allows for considerably more sessions, with 28 being the highest number so far applied to patients with ADHD. This, the researchers note, is important because evidence suggests increased efficacy of tDCS with extended periods of treatment.

The home-based device “opens a new window of opportunity, especially for participants who live in geographically remote areas or have physical or cognitive disabilities that may hinder access to clinical centers,” they write.

Although a study limitation was the relatively high dropout rate in the active group, which might bias interpretation of the findings, only two of seven dropouts in the active group left because of an AE, the investigators note.

Patients received training in using the device, but there was no remote monitoring of sessions. In addition, the study population, which was relatively homogeneous with participants having no moderate to severe symptoms of depression or anxiety, differed from the usual patients with ADHD who are treated in clinical centers, the researchers point out.

As well, the study included only patients not taking pharmacologic treatment for ADHD – so the findings might not be generalizable to other patients, they add.
 

‘Just a first step’

Commenting on the study, Mark George, MD, distinguished professor of psychiatry, radiology, and neurology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, noted that although this was a single-center study with a relatively small sample size, it is still important.

Showing it is possible to do high-quality tDCS studies at home “is a huge advance,” said Dr. George, who was not involved with the research.

“Home treatment is cheaper and easier for patients and allows many people to get treatment who would not be able to make it to the clinic daily for treatment,” he added.

He noted the study showed “a clear improvement in ADHD,” which is important because better treatments are needed.

However, he cautioned that this is “just a first step” and more studies are needed. For example, he said, it is not clear whether improvements persist and if patients need to self-treat forever, as they would with a medication.

Dr. George also noted that although the study used “a pioneering research device” with several safety features, many home-based tDCS devices on the market do not have those.

“I don’t advise patients to do this now. Further studies are needed for FDA approval and general public use,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, and the Brazilian Innovation Agency. Dr. Leffa reported having received grants from the Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul during the conduction of the study. Dr. George reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Thursday night

It was 9 o’clock at night when my phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number but decided to answer it anyway. It was my doctor.

“Chase, I got your labs back and you have a critically low level. I spoke with someone at the hospital, I think I know what is happening, but I need you to go to the pharmacy right now and get a medicine.” She explained further and as I listened electric currents ran through my thighs until I could barely feel my legs.

“I’m so sorry, Chase. I missed it. It was low the last time we did your labs 9 months ago, and I missed it.”

In disbelief, I continued to listen as she instructed me about the next steps I was to take and prepared me for what was to come the next day.

“If you notice any changes overnight, go straight to the ED.”

My chest tingled and I could barely breathe. My mind struggled to comprehend what was happening. I looked at my husband sitting close by on the couch. He looked concerned. I tuned back in and heard her say: “Is your husband there? Can I talk to him?”

“Yes,” is all I could manage, and I handed him the phone. I sat while he listened and asked his questions. My breathing came back under my control, my legs felt wiry, and restlessness set in. “I have to get out of here,” I thought. “I have to go and pick up this medicine.”
 

Monday afternoon

I am sitting across from a PGY3 resident I have been treating since his intern year, as part of his treatment plan for managing a chronic mental illness that began in medical school. Earlier in the day, I received an urgent message from him requesting an emergency appointment.

Within a few minutes of sitting down, the story from his weekend call shift tumbled out of him. His speech became pressured, and his eyes welled with tears as he recounted in detail the steps he had taken to care for a very sick patient overnight.

“I missed it.” The dam broke and he sat sobbing in front of me, his body trembling.

I sat silently across from him. Willing him to breathe.

In time, his breathing came back under his control, and he slowly regained his composure. He continued: “I got the imaging, and I missed a bleed.”
 

Failure and shame

I can recall memorable moments from my training when I came to understand that what I initially perceived to be a mistake was instead part of the work. An example from our practice involves a patient whom I was comanaging with her primary care provider (PCP). She was not doing well following a critical work event. When I met with her after the event, she admitted having thoughts of suicide, refused a voluntary inpatient admission, and would not have met criteria for an involuntary admission. My hands were tied.

Together we created a plan to keep her safe, which included paging her PCP after hours if needed. I told her PCP before leaving that night that he might hear from her and that if she reached out, she would require hospitalization.

I arrived at work the following day, and her PCP shared with me that our patient had overdosed on medication, paged him, and was admitted to the unit.

He seemed forlorn.

I was both relieved by the news and confused by his reaction. I had hoped that she would choose a higher level of care than what we could provide her as an outpatient. I said: “This is good. She followed the plan.”

Her overdose was, of course, not part of the plan. She was struggling with several internal conflicts, including having mixed feelings about coming into the hospital; but, when the critical moment happened and she was faced with a decision to call for help or possibly die, she chose to call her PCP and have him paged as we had talked about.

I looked at her PCP. “You helped get her to where she needed to be.”

In the years of working side by side with medically trained colleagues, I have time and again needed to reframe for them that what they perceive to be a “failure” or a “crisis” is often a catalyst for change. The patient I comanaged with the PCP was a highly skilled caregiver and, as such, had been having a hard time asking for help. The hospitalization that her PCP facilitated allowed her to receive the care she needed and created an opportunity for family and friends to show up for her. Their support fed her, and she only made gains from that point on.

My training had taught me that respecting a patient’s autonomy was of the utmost importance. This instills confidence in patients as the authority in their lives. For a clinician to do this, a certain amount of helplessness must be tolerated. As I became better at identifying these moments of helplessness, feelings of failure and shame transformed.
 

Medical error

Sitting across from the PGY3 resident who I had met with weekly for the past 3 years, I thought about his error.

I thought about my phone call 4 nights earlier. My doctor was called at home by a lab technician, who never met their patients but was simply following protocol and alerted my doctor to the worsening number that she should have been aware of 9 months earlier.

Just like my doctor’s lapse of attention, my patient’s error was not a moment of helplessness to be tolerated. These were mistakes, and there was no way around it.

“People make mistakes.” I said simply.

We sat silently for a time.

I don’t remember who broke the silence. The conversation that followed was centered on our humanity and our capability for both compassion and fallibility. Afterward, I wondered who my doctor confided in and hoped she had a similar conversation.

Dr. Levesque is a clinical psychologist and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., where she also serves on the Committee for a Respectful Learning Environment.

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

Thursday night

It was 9 o’clock at night when my phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number but decided to answer it anyway. It was my doctor.

“Chase, I got your labs back and you have a critically low level. I spoke with someone at the hospital, I think I know what is happening, but I need you to go to the pharmacy right now and get a medicine.” She explained further and as I listened electric currents ran through my thighs until I could barely feel my legs.

“I’m so sorry, Chase. I missed it. It was low the last time we did your labs 9 months ago, and I missed it.”

In disbelief, I continued to listen as she instructed me about the next steps I was to take and prepared me for what was to come the next day.

“If you notice any changes overnight, go straight to the ED.”

My chest tingled and I could barely breathe. My mind struggled to comprehend what was happening. I looked at my husband sitting close by on the couch. He looked concerned. I tuned back in and heard her say: “Is your husband there? Can I talk to him?”

“Yes,” is all I could manage, and I handed him the phone. I sat while he listened and asked his questions. My breathing came back under my control, my legs felt wiry, and restlessness set in. “I have to get out of here,” I thought. “I have to go and pick up this medicine.”
 

Monday afternoon

I am sitting across from a PGY3 resident I have been treating since his intern year, as part of his treatment plan for managing a chronic mental illness that began in medical school. Earlier in the day, I received an urgent message from him requesting an emergency appointment.

Within a few minutes of sitting down, the story from his weekend call shift tumbled out of him. His speech became pressured, and his eyes welled with tears as he recounted in detail the steps he had taken to care for a very sick patient overnight.

“I missed it.” The dam broke and he sat sobbing in front of me, his body trembling.

I sat silently across from him. Willing him to breathe.

In time, his breathing came back under his control, and he slowly regained his composure. He continued: “I got the imaging, and I missed a bleed.”
 

Failure and shame

I can recall memorable moments from my training when I came to understand that what I initially perceived to be a mistake was instead part of the work. An example from our practice involves a patient whom I was comanaging with her primary care provider (PCP). She was not doing well following a critical work event. When I met with her after the event, she admitted having thoughts of suicide, refused a voluntary inpatient admission, and would not have met criteria for an involuntary admission. My hands were tied.

Together we created a plan to keep her safe, which included paging her PCP after hours if needed. I told her PCP before leaving that night that he might hear from her and that if she reached out, she would require hospitalization.

I arrived at work the following day, and her PCP shared with me that our patient had overdosed on medication, paged him, and was admitted to the unit.

He seemed forlorn.

I was both relieved by the news and confused by his reaction. I had hoped that she would choose a higher level of care than what we could provide her as an outpatient. I said: “This is good. She followed the plan.”

Her overdose was, of course, not part of the plan. She was struggling with several internal conflicts, including having mixed feelings about coming into the hospital; but, when the critical moment happened and she was faced with a decision to call for help or possibly die, she chose to call her PCP and have him paged as we had talked about.

I looked at her PCP. “You helped get her to where she needed to be.”

In the years of working side by side with medically trained colleagues, I have time and again needed to reframe for them that what they perceive to be a “failure” or a “crisis” is often a catalyst for change. The patient I comanaged with the PCP was a highly skilled caregiver and, as such, had been having a hard time asking for help. The hospitalization that her PCP facilitated allowed her to receive the care she needed and created an opportunity for family and friends to show up for her. Their support fed her, and she only made gains from that point on.

My training had taught me that respecting a patient’s autonomy was of the utmost importance. This instills confidence in patients as the authority in their lives. For a clinician to do this, a certain amount of helplessness must be tolerated. As I became better at identifying these moments of helplessness, feelings of failure and shame transformed.
 

Medical error

Sitting across from the PGY3 resident who I had met with weekly for the past 3 years, I thought about his error.

I thought about my phone call 4 nights earlier. My doctor was called at home by a lab technician, who never met their patients but was simply following protocol and alerted my doctor to the worsening number that she should have been aware of 9 months earlier.

Just like my doctor’s lapse of attention, my patient’s error was not a moment of helplessness to be tolerated. These were mistakes, and there was no way around it.

“People make mistakes.” I said simply.

We sat silently for a time.

I don’t remember who broke the silence. The conversation that followed was centered on our humanity and our capability for both compassion and fallibility. Afterward, I wondered who my doctor confided in and hoped she had a similar conversation.

Dr. Levesque is a clinical psychologist and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., where she also serves on the Committee for a Respectful Learning Environment.

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

Thursday night

It was 9 o’clock at night when my phone rang. I didn’t recognize the number but decided to answer it anyway. It was my doctor.

“Chase, I got your labs back and you have a critically low level. I spoke with someone at the hospital, I think I know what is happening, but I need you to go to the pharmacy right now and get a medicine.” She explained further and as I listened electric currents ran through my thighs until I could barely feel my legs.

“I’m so sorry, Chase. I missed it. It was low the last time we did your labs 9 months ago, and I missed it.”

In disbelief, I continued to listen as she instructed me about the next steps I was to take and prepared me for what was to come the next day.

“If you notice any changes overnight, go straight to the ED.”

My chest tingled and I could barely breathe. My mind struggled to comprehend what was happening. I looked at my husband sitting close by on the couch. He looked concerned. I tuned back in and heard her say: “Is your husband there? Can I talk to him?”

“Yes,” is all I could manage, and I handed him the phone. I sat while he listened and asked his questions. My breathing came back under my control, my legs felt wiry, and restlessness set in. “I have to get out of here,” I thought. “I have to go and pick up this medicine.”
 

Monday afternoon

I am sitting across from a PGY3 resident I have been treating since his intern year, as part of his treatment plan for managing a chronic mental illness that began in medical school. Earlier in the day, I received an urgent message from him requesting an emergency appointment.

Within a few minutes of sitting down, the story from his weekend call shift tumbled out of him. His speech became pressured, and his eyes welled with tears as he recounted in detail the steps he had taken to care for a very sick patient overnight.

“I missed it.” The dam broke and he sat sobbing in front of me, his body trembling.

I sat silently across from him. Willing him to breathe.

In time, his breathing came back under his control, and he slowly regained his composure. He continued: “I got the imaging, and I missed a bleed.”
 

Failure and shame

I can recall memorable moments from my training when I came to understand that what I initially perceived to be a mistake was instead part of the work. An example from our practice involves a patient whom I was comanaging with her primary care provider (PCP). She was not doing well following a critical work event. When I met with her after the event, she admitted having thoughts of suicide, refused a voluntary inpatient admission, and would not have met criteria for an involuntary admission. My hands were tied.

Together we created a plan to keep her safe, which included paging her PCP after hours if needed. I told her PCP before leaving that night that he might hear from her and that if she reached out, she would require hospitalization.

I arrived at work the following day, and her PCP shared with me that our patient had overdosed on medication, paged him, and was admitted to the unit.

He seemed forlorn.

I was both relieved by the news and confused by his reaction. I had hoped that she would choose a higher level of care than what we could provide her as an outpatient. I said: “This is good. She followed the plan.”

Her overdose was, of course, not part of the plan. She was struggling with several internal conflicts, including having mixed feelings about coming into the hospital; but, when the critical moment happened and she was faced with a decision to call for help or possibly die, she chose to call her PCP and have him paged as we had talked about.

I looked at her PCP. “You helped get her to where she needed to be.”

In the years of working side by side with medically trained colleagues, I have time and again needed to reframe for them that what they perceive to be a “failure” or a “crisis” is often a catalyst for change. The patient I comanaged with the PCP was a highly skilled caregiver and, as such, had been having a hard time asking for help. The hospitalization that her PCP facilitated allowed her to receive the care she needed and created an opportunity for family and friends to show up for her. Their support fed her, and she only made gains from that point on.

My training had taught me that respecting a patient’s autonomy was of the utmost importance. This instills confidence in patients as the authority in their lives. For a clinician to do this, a certain amount of helplessness must be tolerated. As I became better at identifying these moments of helplessness, feelings of failure and shame transformed.
 

Medical error

Sitting across from the PGY3 resident who I had met with weekly for the past 3 years, I thought about his error.

I thought about my phone call 4 nights earlier. My doctor was called at home by a lab technician, who never met their patients but was simply following protocol and alerted my doctor to the worsening number that she should have been aware of 9 months earlier.

Just like my doctor’s lapse of attention, my patient’s error was not a moment of helplessness to be tolerated. These were mistakes, and there was no way around it.

“People make mistakes.” I said simply.

We sat silently for a time.

I don’t remember who broke the silence. The conversation that followed was centered on our humanity and our capability for both compassion and fallibility. Afterward, I wondered who my doctor confided in and hoped she had a similar conversation.

Dr. Levesque is a clinical psychologist and clinical assistant professor of psychiatry at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., where she also serves on the Committee for a Respectful Learning Environment.

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

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

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

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

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

The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) was an effective tool for measuring general and specific psychiatric symptoms across the diagnostic spectrum, based on data from 600 psychiatric inpatients.

“Current DSM and ICD diagnoses do not depict psychopathology accurately, therefore their validity in research and utility in clinical practice is questioned,” wrote Andreas B. Hofmann, PhD, of the University of Zürich and colleagues.

The BPRS was developed to assess changes in psychopathology across a range of severe psychiatric disorders, but its potential to assess symptoms in nonpsychotic disorders has not been explored, the researchers said.

In a study published in Psychiatry Research, the investigators analyzed data from 600 adult psychiatric inpatients divided equally into six diagnostic categories: alcohol use disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety disorders, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders. The mean age of the patients was 41.5 years and 45.5% were women. The demographic characteristics were similar across most groups, although patients with a personality disorder were significantly more likely than other patients to be younger and female.

Patients were assessed using the BPRS based on their main diagnosis. The mini-ICF-APP, another validated measure for assessing psychiatric disorders, served as a comparator, and both were compared to the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI).

Overall, the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP showed moderate correlation and good agreement, the researchers said. The Pearson correlation coefficient for the BPRS and mini-ICF-APP scales was 0.53 and the concordance correlation coefficient was 0.52. The mean sum scores for the BPRS, the mini-ICF-APP, and the CGI were 45.4 (standard deviation, 14.4), 19.93 (SD, 8.21), and 5.55 (SD, 0.84), respectively, which indicated “markedly ill” to “severely ill” patients, the researchers said.

The researchers were able to detect three clusters of symptoms corresponding to externalizing, internalizing, and thought disturbance domains using the BPRS, and four clusters using the mini-ICF-APP.

The symptoms using BPRS and the functionality domains using the mini-ICF-APP “showed a close interplay,” the researchers noted.

“The symptoms and functional domains we found to be central within the network structure are among the first targets of any psychiatric or psychotherapeutic intervention, namely the building of a common language and understanding as well as the establishment of confidence in relationships and a trustworthy therapeutic alliance,” they wrote in their discussion.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the collection of data from routine practice rather than clinical trials, the focus on only the main diagnosis without comorbidities, and the inclusion only of patients requiring hospitalization, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and demonstrate the validity of the BPRS as a measurement tool across a range of psychiatric diagnoses, they said.

“Since the BPRS is a widely known and readily available psychometric scale, our results support its use as a transdiagnostic measurement instrument of psychopathology,” they concluded.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Abbott Laboratories’ new Proclaim Plus spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system featuring FlexBurst360 therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic pain, the company announced Aug. 23.

The “next generation” of its proprietary BurstDR stimulation, FlexBurst360 therapy, provides pain coverage across up to six areas of the trunk and limbs, with programming that can be adjusted as a patient’s individual therapeutic needs evolve, the manufacturer noted.

“Using FlexBurst360 therapy on the Proclaim Plus system, physicians can identify the lowest effective dose of stimulation for each patient and adapt it based on evolving pain needs,” the company said in a news release.

The system also has therapy settings accessed with a mobile device.

Through their mobile devices, patients can access the manufacturer’s NeuroSphere Virtual Clinic, which allows them to communicate with their providers and receive remote adjustments to their therapeutic settings as needed.
 

Game changer?

The newly approved system has a battery life of up to 10 years, akin to the company’s Proclaim XR neurostimulation system for chronic pain. As reported at the time by this news organization, that system was approved by the FDA in 2019.

More than 50 million people in the United States experience chronic pain and most have pain in more than one area of the body. Steven Falowski, MD, with Argires Marotti Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Pa., noted in the release that spinal cord stimulation has provided “tremendous relief” for patients with chronic pain.

Dr. Falowski added that “with its ability to mimic natural patterns found in the brain, the Abbott BurstDR platform has been a game changer” for these patients.

“However, despite the many benefits of BurstDR, such as being effective as a low-energy stimulation therapy, some patients continue to be burdened ... because of multiple painful areas and evolving pain,” he said.

“Now, with Proclaim Plus and FlexBurst360, an already established platform has been improved to treat more patients who suffer from pain across different body parts and changing pain over time,” said Dr. Falowski.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Abbott Laboratories’ new Proclaim Plus spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system featuring FlexBurst360 therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic pain, the company announced Aug. 23.

The “next generation” of its proprietary BurstDR stimulation, FlexBurst360 therapy, provides pain coverage across up to six areas of the trunk and limbs, with programming that can be adjusted as a patient’s individual therapeutic needs evolve, the manufacturer noted.

“Using FlexBurst360 therapy on the Proclaim Plus system, physicians can identify the lowest effective dose of stimulation for each patient and adapt it based on evolving pain needs,” the company said in a news release.

The system also has therapy settings accessed with a mobile device.

Through their mobile devices, patients can access the manufacturer’s NeuroSphere Virtual Clinic, which allows them to communicate with their providers and receive remote adjustments to their therapeutic settings as needed.
 

Game changer?

The newly approved system has a battery life of up to 10 years, akin to the company’s Proclaim XR neurostimulation system for chronic pain. As reported at the time by this news organization, that system was approved by the FDA in 2019.

More than 50 million people in the United States experience chronic pain and most have pain in more than one area of the body. Steven Falowski, MD, with Argires Marotti Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Pa., noted in the release that spinal cord stimulation has provided “tremendous relief” for patients with chronic pain.

Dr. Falowski added that “with its ability to mimic natural patterns found in the brain, the Abbott BurstDR platform has been a game changer” for these patients.

“However, despite the many benefits of BurstDR, such as being effective as a low-energy stimulation therapy, some patients continue to be burdened ... because of multiple painful areas and evolving pain,” he said.

“Now, with Proclaim Plus and FlexBurst360, an already established platform has been improved to treat more patients who suffer from pain across different body parts and changing pain over time,” said Dr. Falowski.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved Abbott Laboratories’ new Proclaim Plus spinal cord stimulation (SCS) system featuring FlexBurst360 therapy for the treatment of patients with chronic pain, the company announced Aug. 23.

The “next generation” of its proprietary BurstDR stimulation, FlexBurst360 therapy, provides pain coverage across up to six areas of the trunk and limbs, with programming that can be adjusted as a patient’s individual therapeutic needs evolve, the manufacturer noted.

“Using FlexBurst360 therapy on the Proclaim Plus system, physicians can identify the lowest effective dose of stimulation for each patient and adapt it based on evolving pain needs,” the company said in a news release.

The system also has therapy settings accessed with a mobile device.

Through their mobile devices, patients can access the manufacturer’s NeuroSphere Virtual Clinic, which allows them to communicate with their providers and receive remote adjustments to their therapeutic settings as needed.
 

Game changer?

The newly approved system has a battery life of up to 10 years, akin to the company’s Proclaim XR neurostimulation system for chronic pain. As reported at the time by this news organization, that system was approved by the FDA in 2019.

More than 50 million people in the United States experience chronic pain and most have pain in more than one area of the body. Steven Falowski, MD, with Argires Marotti Neurosurgical Associates of Lancaster, Pa., noted in the release that spinal cord stimulation has provided “tremendous relief” for patients with chronic pain.

Dr. Falowski added that “with its ability to mimic natural patterns found in the brain, the Abbott BurstDR platform has been a game changer” for these patients.

“However, despite the many benefits of BurstDR, such as being effective as a low-energy stimulation therapy, some patients continue to be burdened ... because of multiple painful areas and evolving pain,” he said.

“Now, with Proclaim Plus and FlexBurst360, an already established platform has been improved to treat more patients who suffer from pain across different body parts and changing pain over time,” said Dr. Falowski.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.

Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).

It is the “first and only rapid-acting oral medicine approved for the treatment of MDD with labeling of statistically significant antidepressant efficacy compared to placebo starting at one week,” the company said in a news release.

“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release. 
 

‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?

Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.

“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.

The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.

The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which  compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.

Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.

The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.

Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).

It is the “first and only rapid-acting oral medicine approved for the treatment of MDD with labeling of statistically significant antidepressant efficacy compared to placebo starting at one week,” the company said in a news release.

“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release. 
 

‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?

Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.

“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.

The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.

The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which  compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.

Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.

The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first oral N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in adults, its manufacturer has announced.

Auvelity (Axsome Therapeutics) is a proprietary extended-release oral tablet containing dextromethorphan (45 mg) and bupropion (105 mg).

It is the “first and only rapid-acting oral medicine approved for the treatment of MDD with labeling of statistically significant antidepressant efficacy compared to placebo starting at one week,” the company said in a news release.

“The approval of Auvelity represents a milestone in depression treatment based on its novel oral NMDA antagonist mechanism, its rapid antidepressant efficacy demonstrated in controlled trials, and a relatively favorable safety profile,” Maurizio Fava, MD, psychiatrist-in-chief, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, added in the release. 
 

‘Milestone’ in depression treatment?

Dr. Fava noted that nearly two-thirds of patients treated with currently available antidepressants fail to respond adequately, and those who do may not achieve clinically meaningful responses for up to 6-8 weeks.

“Given the debilitating nature of depression, the efficacy of Auvelity observed at 1 week and sustained thereafter may have a significant impact on the current treatment paradigm for this condition,” he said.

The company noted the drug was studied in a comprehensive clinical program that included more than 1,100 patients with MDD.

The efficacy of the drug was demonstrated in the GEMINI placebo-controlled study – with confirmatory evidence provided by the ASCEND study, which  compared it with bupropion sustained-release tablets.

Axsome said it expects to launch the new oral medication in the fourth quarter of this year. It is not approved for use in children.

The full prescribing information and medication guide are available online.

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

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

Watching TV may increase your risk of dementia, while using a computer may lower it, new research suggests.

The relationship to dementia with these activities remained strong no matter how much physical activity a person did, the authors wrote in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Both watching TV and using a computer have been linked to increased risk of chronic disease and mortality, while exercise and physical activity (PA) have shown benefit in reducing cognitive decline, structural brain atrophy, and dementia risk in older adults, the authors wrote.

The authors said they wanted to try to understand the effects of watching TV and using computers on dementia risk, because people in the United States and Europe have been engaging in both of these activities more often.

They concluded that it’s not the sitting part of sedentary behavior (SB) that potentially has the effect on dementia but what people are doing while sitting.

Some of the results were surprising, lead author David Raichlen, PhD, professor of Human and Evolutionary Biology at University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Previous literature on sedentary behaviors have documented their negative effects on a wide range of health outcomes, rather than finding positive associations, he explained.
 

More than 140,000 included in study

The researchers conducted their prospective cohort study using data from the United Kingdom Biobank. After excluding people younger than 60, those with prevalent dementia at the start of follow-up, and those without complete data, 146,651 participants were included.

The participants were followed from their baseline visit until they received a dementia diagnosis, died, were lost to follow-up, or were last admitted to the hospital.

TV-watching time was linked with an increased risk of incident dementia (HR [95% confidence interval] = 1.31 [1.23-1.40]), and computer use was linked with a reduced risk of incident dementia HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.76-0.85]).

TV’s link with higher dementia risk increased in those who had the highest use, compared with those who had the lowest use (HR [95% CI] = 1.28 [1.18-1.39].

Similarly, the link with risk reduction for dementia with computer use increased with more use.

Both medium and high computer time were associated with reduced risk of incident dementia (HR [95% CI] = 0.70 [0.64-0.76] and HR [95% CI] = 0.76 [0.70-0.83] respectively).

Dr. Raichlen pointed out that the high use of TV in this study was 4 or more hours a day and computer use – which included leisure use, not work use – had benefits on dementia risk after just half an hour.

These results remained significant after researchers adjusted for demographic, health, and lifestyle variables, including time spent on physical activity, sleeping, obesity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, diet scores, education level, body mass index, and employment type.
 

Physical is still better than sedentary activity

One potential reason for the different effects on dementia risk in the two activities studied, the authors write, is that sitting down to watch TV is associated with “uniquely low levels of muscle activity and energy expenditure, compared with sitting to use a computer.”

Andrew Budson, MD, chief of Cognitive & Behavioral Neurology and Associate Chief of Staff for Education for the VA Boston Healthcare System, Mass., who was not part of the study, said he thinks a more likely explanation for the study findings lies in the active versus passive tasks required in the two kinds of viewing that the authors reference.

“When we’re doing cognitive activity involving using the computer, we’re using large parts of our cortex to carry out that activity, whereas when we’re watching TV, there are probably relatively small amounts of our brain that are actually active,” Dr. Budson, author of Seven Steps to Managing Your Memory, explained in an interview.

“This is one of the first times I’ve been convinced that even when the computer activity isn’t completely new and novel, it may be beneficial,” Dr. Budson said.

It would be much better to do physical activity, but if the choice is sedentary activity, active cognitive activities, such as computer use, are better than TV watching, he continued.

The results of the current study are consistent with previous work showing that the type of sedentary behavior matters, according to the authors.

“Several studies have shown that TV time is associated with mortality and poor cardiometabolic biomarkers, whereas computer time is not,” they wrote.

A limitation of the study is that sedentary behaviors were self-reported via questionnaires, and there may be errors in recall.

“The use of objective methods for measuring both SB and PA are needed in future studies,” they write.

The authors receive support from the National Institutes of Health, the State of Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services, and the McKnight Brain Research Foundation. Neither the authors nor Dr. Budson declared relevant financial relationships.

There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.

COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.

There’s a difference between long COVID and an acute infection with lasting effects, doctors say.

“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.

Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
 

Multiorgan damage

Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.

Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.

“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
 

Inflammation

Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.

In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.

Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
 

Blood clots

Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.

Viral reservoirs

The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
 

Diabetes

Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.

There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
 

Nervous system issues

People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”

Long-term outlook

Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”

Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”

But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”

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

There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.

COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.

There’s a difference between long COVID and an acute infection with lasting effects, doctors say.

“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.

Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
 

Multiorgan damage

Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.

Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.

“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
 

Inflammation

Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.

In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.

Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
 

Blood clots

Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.

Viral reservoirs

The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
 

Diabetes

Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.

There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
 

Nervous system issues

People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”

Long-term outlook

Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”

Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”

But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”

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

There’s little doubt long COVID is real. The federal government recognizes long COVID as a condition and said in two reports issued in August that one in five adult COVID-19 survivors have a health condition related to their illness.

COVID-19 can damage multiple organs in the body. Sometimes this damage leads to long COVID; sometimes other reasons are at play. Doctors are beginning to sort it out.

There’s a difference between long COVID and an acute infection with lasting effects, doctors say.

“COVID itself can actually cause prolonged illness, and we don’t really call that long COVID,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, a doctor at UCLA Health in Los Angeles. But if symptoms extend beyond 12 weeks, that puts patients in the realm of long COVID.

Symptoms can range from mild to severe and can keep people from resuming their normal lives and jobs. Sometimes they last for months, according to the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.
 

Multiorgan damage

Lung scarring and other lung problems are common after COVID, said Leora Horwitz, MD, an internal medicine specialist at New York University. Even after a mild case, people can have breathing issues for months, a team at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, said in an online briefing. One study published in the journal Radiology found damage in people a full year after a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Some people have persistent heart, kidney, liver, and nervous system problems after COVID-19. A study published in 2020 in JAMA Cardiology found 60% of people who had COVID-19 had ongoing signs of heart inflammation. Nearly a third of people hospitalized for COVID-19 get kidney damage that can become chronic, and some end up needing dialysis or a transplant, said C. John Sperati, MD, a kidney specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

This might be, in part, because SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, directly infects the cells in many organs.

Nicole Bhave, MD, a cardiologist at University of Michigan Health, Ann Arbor is concerned that COVID-19 appears to increase the risk of heart problems in some people.

“Some of the uptick may just be recognition bias, in that people with symptoms are seeking care,” she said. “But there’s definitely a biological basis by which COVID could tip people over into a new diagnosis of heart failure.”
 

Inflammation

Inflammation is probably a key part of the long-term effects of COVID-19.

Some people have a serious immune reaction to COVID-19 called a cytokine storm, said Nitra Aggarwal Gilotra, MD, a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins Medicine. This release of inflammation-causing molecules called cytokines is meant to attack the invading virus. But it can be so severe that it wreaks havoc on healthy tissues and organs and causes lasting damage – if patients even survive it.

In some people, inflammation can affect the heart, causing myocarditis. Myocarditis symptoms include chest pain, breathlessness, and heart palpitations. Though rare, it can be serious and can raise the risk of other heart problems, including heart failure, down the line.

Long COVID may also trigger an autoimmune condition, said Eline Luning Prak, MD, PhD, a pathologist at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Long COVID can share many hallmark symptoms with autoimmune diseases, including fatigue, widespread pain, memory problems, and mood disorders.
 

Blood clots

Studies have shown the overcharged inflammatory response to COVID-19 can cause blood clots. This sometimes overwhelming clotting was an early hallmark of COVID-19 infection, and when clots restrict blood flow in the brain, lungs, kidneys, or limbs, they can cause long-term damage. Some can be deadly. Researchers in Sweden found patients were at risk of deep vein thrombosis – a blood clot usually in the leg – up to 3 months after infection and at higher risk of a blood clot in the lung, called pulmonary embolism, for as long as 3 months.

Viral reservoirs

The virus itself may also linger in a patient’s body, causing continued symptoms and, potentially, new flare-ups. Zoe Swank, PhD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues reported in a preprint study that they found pieces of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the blood of most patients with long COVID symptoms they tested – some as long as a year after infection. The study has not yet been peer reviewed.

Another team found evidence of the virus in stool up to 7 months later, which suggests the virus hides out in the gut. Other early studies have found bits of viral RNA in the appendix, breast tissue, heart, eyes, and brain.
 

Diabetes

Diabetes is a risk factor for getting severe COVID-19, and multiple studies have shown people can get diabetes both while battling infection and afterward. One study of veterans, published in The Lancet Diabetes and Endocrinology, found COVID-19 survivors were about 40% more likely to get diabetes over the next year.

There are a few ways this might happen. Insulin-producing cells in the pancreas have SARS-CoV-2 receptors – a type of molecular doorway the coronavirus can attach to. Damage to these cells could make the body less able to produce insulin, which in turn can lead to diabetes. The virus could also disrupt the balance in the body or cause inflammation that leads to insulin resistance, which can develop into diabetes, Ziad Al-Aly, MD, of the Veterans Affairs St. Louis Health Care System, and colleagues wrote.
 

Nervous system issues

People who get COVID-19 are also more vulnerable to postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS). This affects what’s known as the autonomic nervous system, which regulates blood circulation, and includes those things that happen in your body without your having to think about them, like breathing, heartbeat, and digestion. POTS can cause common long COVID neurologic symptoms, including headaches, fatigue, brain fog, insomnia, and problems thinking and concentrating. “This was a known condition prior to COVID, but it was incredibly rare,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “After COVID, I’ve seen it with increasing frequency.”

Long-term outlook

Lasting issues after COVID-19 are much more likely after a moderate or severe infection. Still, plenty of people are battling them even after a mild illness. “As for why, that’s the billion-dollar question,” said Dr. Horwitz. “It’s well known that viral infections can cause long-term dysregulation. Why that is, we really just don’t know.”

Whether it’s virus hiding out in the body, long-term organ damage, or an autoimmune reaction likely differs from person to person. “I’m believing, increasingly, that it’s a combination of all of these, just based on how different patients are responding to different medications,” said Dr. Viswanathan. “One patient will respond to something beautifully, and another patient won’t at all.”

But it’s clear a significant number of people are facing long-term health struggles because of COVID-19, which has infected at least 580 million people globally and 92 million – likely many more – in the United States, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Even a small increased risk of conditions like heart disease or diabetes translates to a huge number of people, Dr. Horwitz said. “If even 1% of people getting COVID have long-term symptoms, that’s a major public health crisis, because that’s 1% of pretty much everybody in the country.”

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

To address the ongoing shortage of available beds in psychiatric facilities, the American Psychiatric Association has developed a computer-simulation model to help estimate the number of beds needed in any specific U.S. community.

The model, introduced in a recent report from the organization, can predict how changes in any component of mental health care in a community, including mobile trauma teams and assertive community treatment, will affect other components and the overall capacity to care for patients with mental illness.

Leaders of the APA task force that drafted the report noted that communities can use the model to confront the ongoing mental health crisis brought about by a lack of inpatient beds, a shortage of mental health professionals, shorter inpatient stays, and a rising number of individuals with mental illness.

The report was first released at the APA’s annual meeting in May 2022 and was discussed in further detail at a press briefing in mid-August.

“Part of the wisdom of the APA leadership of releasing this report in this format now is to keep attention and awareness on the issue and acknowledge that there is a terrible shortage of beds,” Anita Everett, MD, past president of the APA and chair of the report’s task force, told briefing attendees.

“We need to have ongoing conversations about how we can solve this problem,” said Dr. Everett, who is also director of the Center for Mental Health Services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
 

A virtual world

The report describes both historic and current psychiatric bed use and discusses how the availability of community resources affects the need for inpatient care. It includes analyses of inpatient medical care spending and describes barriers to accessing inpatient psychiatric care.

Historically, the number of state-operated psychiatric hospital beds in the United States was 337 per 100,000 people in the mid-1950s. Today, that figure is about 11.7 state psychiatric hospital beds per 100,000 people, the report says.

The average length of an inpatient stay has also decreased significantly both for adults and children. Pediatric length of stay declined from 12.2 days to 4.4 days between 1990 and 2000.

Launched in 2020, the APA Presidential Task Force on the Assessment of Psychiatric Bed Needs in the United States includes more than 30 mental health professionals and members of the APA administration.

The group was charged with drafting a report that explains and defines the current mental health crisis. They were also charged with developing a method for calculating the number of psychiatric beds needed in any given community.

Task force leaders said the model considers how individuals enter the mental health care system and are routed to appropriate services, how long they remain in the system, and the capacity of the system to respond to demand.

The model is based on a “virtual world” that has a number of care components. These include mobile crisis teams, intensive team-based outpatient care, community-based crisis beds, psychiatric hospital beds, and residential and step-down programs.

The model factors in the magnitude of the need for beds in many service areas. Factors include population size, estimates of the rate of acute mental health crises per 100,000 population, adequacy of the community mental health system, the intersection between the mental health and criminal justice systems, and outpatient and inpatient capacities.

The model computes the estimated number of patients waiting in the emergency department, crisis receiving centers, and jail, as well as average wait times. It also calculates the percentage of use of the various services.

The model will be continually updated and can be modified to better reflect the current situation in any given community.
 

Real-world testing

A team led by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and two area hospitals is testing the APA model by using it to calculate the number of beds needed in their community.

“Because the model is focused on the continuum of care services, it allows communities to try to focus on what is the right mix of services needed to try to reduce the need for in-patient hospitalization and measure the impact of development of resources across the continuum, including inpatient beds, to try to achieve the right mix,” Gregory Dalack, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry at the University of Michigan Health System, told this news organization.

Ultimately, Dr. Dalack expects that the model will tell the team something they already know: that additional psychiatric beds are needed in their community.

However, meeting the needs of patients and families is not just about beds, he noted. The model will help provide a fuller picture of psychiatric care and will take into account existing services from many aspects of the care field.

“If we put all the focus just on hospital beds, we are only addressing one part of the challenge,” Dr. Dalack said.

The challenge is also about “identifying what resources/services are already in the continuum of care, where expansion of those or development of new programs might be needed, and what the impact is on the system, particularly with folks who arrive in the emergency room who might need inpatient admission,” he added.

Dr. Everett said the APA leadership team is now actively recruiting others to test the model in their communities, which will help to calibrate the system.

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

To address the ongoing shortage of available beds in psychiatric facilities, the American Psychiatric Association has developed a computer-simulation model to help estimate the number of beds needed in any specific U.S. community.

The model, introduced in a recent report from the organization, can predict how changes in any component of mental health care in a community, including mobile trauma teams and assertive community treatment, will affect other components and the overall capacity to care for patients with mental illness.

Leaders of the APA task force that drafted the report noted that communities can use the model to confront the ongoing mental health crisis brought about by a lack of inpatient beds, a shortage of mental health professionals, shorter inpatient stays, and a rising number of individuals with mental illness.

The report was first released at the APA’s annual meeting in May 2022 and was discussed in further detail at a press briefing in mid-August.

“Part of the wisdom of the APA leadership of releasing this report in this format now is to keep attention and awareness on the issue and acknowledge that there is a terrible shortage of beds,” Anita Everett, MD, past president of the APA and chair of the report’s task force, told briefing attendees.

“We need to have ongoing conversations about how we can solve this problem,” said Dr. Everett, who is also director of the Center for Mental Health Services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
 

A virtual world

The report describes both historic and current psychiatric bed use and discusses how the availability of community resources affects the need for inpatient care. It includes analyses of inpatient medical care spending and describes barriers to accessing inpatient psychiatric care.

Historically, the number of state-operated psychiatric hospital beds in the United States was 337 per 100,000 people in the mid-1950s. Today, that figure is about 11.7 state psychiatric hospital beds per 100,000 people, the report says.

The average length of an inpatient stay has also decreased significantly both for adults and children. Pediatric length of stay declined from 12.2 days to 4.4 days between 1990 and 2000.

Launched in 2020, the APA Presidential Task Force on the Assessment of Psychiatric Bed Needs in the United States includes more than 30 mental health professionals and members of the APA administration.

The group was charged with drafting a report that explains and defines the current mental health crisis. They were also charged with developing a method for calculating the number of psychiatric beds needed in any given community.

Task force leaders said the model considers how individuals enter the mental health care system and are routed to appropriate services, how long they remain in the system, and the capacity of the system to respond to demand.

The model is based on a “virtual world” that has a number of care components. These include mobile crisis teams, intensive team-based outpatient care, community-based crisis beds, psychiatric hospital beds, and residential and step-down programs.

The model factors in the magnitude of the need for beds in many service areas. Factors include population size, estimates of the rate of acute mental health crises per 100,000 population, adequacy of the community mental health system, the intersection between the mental health and criminal justice systems, and outpatient and inpatient capacities.

The model computes the estimated number of patients waiting in the emergency department, crisis receiving centers, and jail, as well as average wait times. It also calculates the percentage of use of the various services.

The model will be continually updated and can be modified to better reflect the current situation in any given community.
 

Real-world testing

A team led by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and two area hospitals is testing the APA model by using it to calculate the number of beds needed in their community.

“Because the model is focused on the continuum of care services, it allows communities to try to focus on what is the right mix of services needed to try to reduce the need for in-patient hospitalization and measure the impact of development of resources across the continuum, including inpatient beds, to try to achieve the right mix,” Gregory Dalack, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry at the University of Michigan Health System, told this news organization.

Ultimately, Dr. Dalack expects that the model will tell the team something they already know: that additional psychiatric beds are needed in their community.

However, meeting the needs of patients and families is not just about beds, he noted. The model will help provide a fuller picture of psychiatric care and will take into account existing services from many aspects of the care field.

“If we put all the focus just on hospital beds, we are only addressing one part of the challenge,” Dr. Dalack said.

The challenge is also about “identifying what resources/services are already in the continuum of care, where expansion of those or development of new programs might be needed, and what the impact is on the system, particularly with folks who arrive in the emergency room who might need inpatient admission,” he added.

Dr. Everett said the APA leadership team is now actively recruiting others to test the model in their communities, which will help to calibrate the system.

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

To address the ongoing shortage of available beds in psychiatric facilities, the American Psychiatric Association has developed a computer-simulation model to help estimate the number of beds needed in any specific U.S. community.

The model, introduced in a recent report from the organization, can predict how changes in any component of mental health care in a community, including mobile trauma teams and assertive community treatment, will affect other components and the overall capacity to care for patients with mental illness.

Leaders of the APA task force that drafted the report noted that communities can use the model to confront the ongoing mental health crisis brought about by a lack of inpatient beds, a shortage of mental health professionals, shorter inpatient stays, and a rising number of individuals with mental illness.

The report was first released at the APA’s annual meeting in May 2022 and was discussed in further detail at a press briefing in mid-August.

“Part of the wisdom of the APA leadership of releasing this report in this format now is to keep attention and awareness on the issue and acknowledge that there is a terrible shortage of beds,” Anita Everett, MD, past president of the APA and chair of the report’s task force, told briefing attendees.

“We need to have ongoing conversations about how we can solve this problem,” said Dr. Everett, who is also director of the Center for Mental Health Services at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
 

A virtual world

The report describes both historic and current psychiatric bed use and discusses how the availability of community resources affects the need for inpatient care. It includes analyses of inpatient medical care spending and describes barriers to accessing inpatient psychiatric care.

Historically, the number of state-operated psychiatric hospital beds in the United States was 337 per 100,000 people in the mid-1950s. Today, that figure is about 11.7 state psychiatric hospital beds per 100,000 people, the report says.

The average length of an inpatient stay has also decreased significantly both for adults and children. Pediatric length of stay declined from 12.2 days to 4.4 days between 1990 and 2000.

Launched in 2020, the APA Presidential Task Force on the Assessment of Psychiatric Bed Needs in the United States includes more than 30 mental health professionals and members of the APA administration.

The group was charged with drafting a report that explains and defines the current mental health crisis. They were also charged with developing a method for calculating the number of psychiatric beds needed in any given community.

Task force leaders said the model considers how individuals enter the mental health care system and are routed to appropriate services, how long they remain in the system, and the capacity of the system to respond to demand.

The model is based on a “virtual world” that has a number of care components. These include mobile crisis teams, intensive team-based outpatient care, community-based crisis beds, psychiatric hospital beds, and residential and step-down programs.

The model factors in the magnitude of the need for beds in many service areas. Factors include population size, estimates of the rate of acute mental health crises per 100,000 population, adequacy of the community mental health system, the intersection between the mental health and criminal justice systems, and outpatient and inpatient capacities.

The model computes the estimated number of patients waiting in the emergency department, crisis receiving centers, and jail, as well as average wait times. It also calculates the percentage of use of the various services.

The model will be continually updated and can be modified to better reflect the current situation in any given community.
 

Real-world testing

A team led by the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and two area hospitals is testing the APA model by using it to calculate the number of beds needed in their community.

“Because the model is focused on the continuum of care services, it allows communities to try to focus on what is the right mix of services needed to try to reduce the need for in-patient hospitalization and measure the impact of development of resources across the continuum, including inpatient beds, to try to achieve the right mix,” Gregory Dalack, MD, chair of the department of psychiatry at the University of Michigan Health System, told this news organization.

Ultimately, Dr. Dalack expects that the model will tell the team something they already know: that additional psychiatric beds are needed in their community.

However, meeting the needs of patients and families is not just about beds, he noted. The model will help provide a fuller picture of psychiatric care and will take into account existing services from many aspects of the care field.

“If we put all the focus just on hospital beds, we are only addressing one part of the challenge,” Dr. Dalack said.

The challenge is also about “identifying what resources/services are already in the continuum of care, where expansion of those or development of new programs might be needed, and what the impact is on the system, particularly with folks who arrive in the emergency room who might need inpatient admission,” he added.

Dr. Everett said the APA leadership team is now actively recruiting others to test the model in their communities, which will help to calibrate the system.

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