Clinical Psychiatry News

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

I have written in my first two columns of 2024 about how the obstacles for women to access perinatal mental healthcare are not well understood. This is despite an almost uniform adoption of screening practices for postpartum depression (PPD) over the last 10-15 years in the United States, the approval and off-label use of effective pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments for PPD, and the growing numbers of perinatal access programs across the country in various states and hospitals.

I want to revisit this topic because I believe it is extremely important that we get to a better understanding of the obstacles postpartum patients experience so we can flatten the curve with respect to the perinatal treatment cascade. It turns out that screening is easy but accessing care for those with a positive screen with significant depressive symptoms is an entirely distinct outcome.

Recently, a group of investigators examined the barriers to identifying and treating women for PPD. In a meta-analysis that included 32 reviews, the researchers analyzed the barriers women face when they seek help, access care, and engage in treatment for mental health issues while pregnant or in the postpartum period. The researchers found women have a wide variety of barriers to seeking and accessing care related to societal, political, organizational, interpersonal, healthcare professional, and individual factors at every level of the care pathway. In total, the researchers categorized barriers into six overarching themes and 62 sub-themes, and I want to highlight a few of the biggest contributors below.

In the meta-analysis, a major contributor to deciding to consult with a healthcare professional was a lack of understanding of what constituted a perinatal mental illness. This lack of understanding led women to ignore or minimize their symptoms. Others said that the cost of travel or arranging childcare were factors that prevented them from making an appointment with a provider. Some women reported that their healthcare professionals’ normalization of their symptoms was a barrier in the early stages of the care pathway, and others were unclear about the role a healthcare professional played in involving social services and removing their child from their care, or feared being judged as a bad mom.

One of the major societal factors identified in the study is the stigma associated with PPD. It is unfortunate that for so many postpartum patients, an extraordinary stigma associated with PPD still persists despite efforts from a large number of stakeholders, including the scientific community, advocacy groups, and celebrities who have publicly come out and described their experiences with PPD. For so many postpartum patients, there is an inability to let go of the stigma, shame, humiliation, and isolation associated with the suffering that goes along with PPD.

Another factor identified in the study as being an obstacle to care was a lack of a network to help postpartum patients navigate the shifting roles associated with new parenthood, which is magnified if a patient has developed major depressive disorder. This is why a strong social support network is critical to help women navigate the novelty of being a new mom. We were aware of this as a field nearly 30 years ago when Michael W. O’Hara, PhD, published a paper in the Archives of General Psychiatry noting that social support was an important predictor for risk of PPD.

When we talk with patients in clinic, and even when we interviewed subjects for our upcoming documentary More Than Blue, which will be completed in the fall of 2024, women in the postpartum period have cited the navigation of our current healthcare system as one of the greatest obstacles to getting care. Suffering from PPD and being handed a book of potential providers, absent someone helping to navigate that referral system, is really asking a new mom to climb a very tall mountain. Additionally, moms living in rural areas likely don’t have the sort of access to perinatal mental health services that women in more urban areas do.

It becomes increasingly clear that it is not the lack of availability of effective treatments that is the problem. As I’ve mentioned in previous columns, the last 15 years has given us a much greater understanding of the effectiveness of antidepressants as well as nonpharmacologic psychotherapies for women who may not want to be on a medicine. We now have very effective psychotherapies and there’s excitement about other new treatments that may have a role in the treatment of postpartum depression, including the use of neurosteroids, ketamine or esketamine, and psychedelics or neuromodulation such as transcranial magnetic stimulation. There is also no dearth of both well-studied treatments and even new and effective treatments that, as we move toward precision reproductive psychiatry, may be useful in tailoring treatment for patients.

If we’re looking to understand the anatomy of the perinatal treatment cascade, finally systematically evaluating these barriers may lead us down a path to understand how to build the bridge to postpartum wellness for women who are suffering. While what’s on the horizon is very exciting, we still have yet to address these barriers that prevent women from accessing this expanding array of treatment options. That is, in fact, the challenge to patients, their families, advocacy groups, political organizations, and society in general. The bridging of that gap is a burden that we all share as we try to mitigate the suffering associated with such an exquisitely treatable illness while access to treatment still feels beyond reach of so many postpartum persons around us.

As we continue our research on new treatments, we should keep in mind that they will be of no value unless we understand how to facilitate access to these treatments for the greatest number of patients. This endeavor really highlights the importance of health services research and implementation science, and that we need to be partnering early and often with colleagues if we are to truly achieve this goal.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected]

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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

A single night of sleep deprivation had a significant impact on human blood serum, based on new data from an analysis of nearly 500 proteins. Compromised sleep has demonstrated negative effects on cardiovascular, immune, and neuronal systems, and previous studies have shown human serum proteome changes after a simulation of night shift work, wrote Alvhild Alette Bjørkum, MD, of Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, and colleagues.

In a pilot study published in Sleep Advances, the researchers recruited eight healthy adult women aged 22-57 years with no history of neurologic or psychiatric problems to participate in a study of the effect of compromised sleep on protein profiles, with implications for effects on cells, tissues, and organ systems. Each of the participants served as their own controls, and blood samples were taken after 6 hours of sleep at night, and again after 6 hours of sleep deprivation the following night.

The researchers identified analyzed 494 proteins using mass spectrometry. Of these, 66 were differentially expressed after 6 hours of sleep deprivation. The top enriched biologic processes of these significantly changed proteins were protein activation cascade, platelet degranulation, blood coagulation, and hemostasis.

Further analysis using gene ontology showed changes in response to sleep deprivation in biologic process, molecular function, and immune system process categories, including specific associations related to wound healing, cholesterol transport, high-density lipoprotein particle receptor binding, and granulocyte chemotaxis.

The findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size, inclusion only of adult females, and the use of data from only 1 night of sleep deprivation, the researchers noted. However, the results support previous studies showing a negative impact of sleep deprivation on biologic functions, they said.

“Our study was able to reveal another set of human serum proteins that were altered by sleep deprivation and could connect similar biological processes to sleep deprivation that have been identified before with slightly different methods,” the researchers concluded. The study findings add to the knowledge base for the protein profiling of sleep deprivation, which may inform the development of tools to manage lack of sleep and mistimed sleep, particularly in shift workers.
 

Too Soon for Clinical Implications

“The adverse impact of poor sleep across many organ systems is gaining recognition, but the mechanisms underlying sleep-related pathology are not well understood,” Evan L. Brittain, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, said in an interview. “Studies like this begin to shed light on the mechanisms by which poor or reduced sleep affects specific bodily functions,” added Dr. Brittain, who was not involved in the study.

“The effects of other acute physiologic stressor such as exercise on the circulating proteome are well described. In that regard, it is not surprising that a brief episode of sleep deprivation would lead to detectable changes in the circulation,” Dr. Brittain said.

However, the specific changes reported in this study are difficult to interpret because of methodological and analytical concerns, particularly the small sample size, lack of an external validation cohort, and absence of appropriate statistical adjustments in the results, Dr. Brittain noted. These limitations prevent consideration of clinical implications without further study.

The study received no outside funding. Neither the researchers nor Dr. Brittain disclosed any conflicts of interest.

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

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

Four organizations owned by private equity firms — including two provider groups — dominated the No Surprises Act’s disputed bill arbitration process in its first year, filing about 70% of 657,040 cases against insurers in 2023, a new report finds. 

The findings, recently published in Health Affairs, suggest that private equity–owned organizations are forcefully challenging insurers about payments for certain kinds of out-of-network care. 

Their fighting stance has paid off: The percentage of resolved arbitration cases won by providers jumped from 72% in the first quarter of 2023 to 85% in the last quarter, and they were awarded a median of more than 300% the contracted in-network rates for the services in question.

With many more out-of-network bills disputed by providers than expected, “the system is not working exactly the way it was anticipated when this law was written,” lead author Jack Hoadley, PhD, a research professor emeritus at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, Washington, DC, told this news organization.

And, he said, the public and the federal government may end up paying a price. 

Congress passed the No Surprises Act in 2020 and then-President Donald Trump signed it. The landmark bill, which went into effect in 2022, was designed to protect patients from unexpected and often exorbitant “surprise” bills after they received some kinds of out-of-network care. 

Now, many types of providers are forbidden from billing patients beyond normal in-network costs. In these cases, health plans and out-of-network providers — who don’t have mutual agreements — must wrangle over payment amounts, which are intended to not exceed inflation-adjusted 2019 median levels. 

A binding arbitration process kicks in when a provider and a health plan fail to agree about how much the plan will pay for a service. Then, a third-party arbitrator is called in to make a ruling that’s binding. The process is controversial, and a flurry of lawsuits from providers have challenged it. 

The new report, which updates an earlier analysis, examines data about disputed cases from all of 2023.

Of the 657,040 new cases filed in 2023, about 70% came from four private equity-funded organizations: Team Health, SCP Health, Radiology Partners, and Envision, which each provide physician services.

About half of the 2023 cases were from just four states: Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Georgia. The report says the four organizations are especially active in those states. In contrast, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Washington state each had just 1500 or fewer cases filed last year. 

Health plans challenged a third of cases as ineligible, and 22% of all resolved cases were deemed ineligible.

Providers won 80% of resolved challenges in 2023, although it’s not clear how much money they reaped. Still, it’s clear that “in the vast majority of the cases, insurers have to pay larger amounts to the provider,” Dr. Hoadley said.

Radiologists made a median of at least 500% of the in-network rate in their cases. Surgeons and neurologists made even more money — a median of at least 800% of the in-network rate. Overall, providers made 322%-350% of in-network rates, depending on the quarter.

Dr. Hoadley cautioned that only a small percentage of medical payments are disputed. In those cases, “the amount that the insurer offers is accepted, and that’s the end of the story.”

Why are the providers often reaping much more than typical payments for in-network services? It’s “really hard to know,” Dr. Hoadley said. But one factor, he said, may be the fact that providers are able to offer evidence challenging that amounts that insurers say they paid previously: “Hey, when we were in network, we were paid this much.”

It’s not clear whether the dispute-and-arbitration system will cost insurers — and patients — more in the long run. The Congressional Budget Office actually thought the No Surprises Act might lower the growth of premiums slightly and save the federal government money, Dr. Hoadley said, but that could potentially not happen. The flood of litigation also contributes to uncertainty, he said. 

Alan Sager, PhD, professor of Health Law, Policy, and Management at Boston University School of Public Health, told this news organization that premiums are bound to rise as insurers react to higher costs. He also expects that providers will question the value of being in-network. “If you’re out-of-network and can obtain much higher payments, why would any doctor or hospital remain in-network, especially since they don’t lose out on patient volume?”

Why are provider groups owned by private equity firms so aggressive at challenging health plans? Loren Adler, a fellow and associate director of the Brookings Institution’s Center on Health Policy, told this news organization that these companies play large roles in fields affected by the No Surprises Act. These include emergency medicine, radiology, and anesthesiology, said Mr. Adler, who’s also studied the No Surprises Act’s dispute/arbitration system.

Mr. Adler added that larger companies “are better suited to deal with technical complexities of this process and spend the sort of upfront money to go through it.”

In the big picture, Mr. Adler said, the new study “raises question of whether Congress at some point wants to try to basically bring prices from the arbitration process back in line with average in-network prices.”

The study was funded by the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. Dr. Hoadley, Dr. Sager, and Mr. Adler had no disclosures.

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

A new analysis has detected a signal of suicidal ideation associated with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide, especially among individuals concurrently using antidepressants or benzodiazepines. 

However, the investigators and outside experts urge caution in drawing any firm conclusions based on the study’s observations. 

“Clinicians should not interpret these results as proof of causal relationship between suicidal ideation and semaglutide, as our pharmacovigilance study showed an association between the use of semaglutide and reports of suicidal ideation,” study investigator Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Nonetheless, “physicians prescribing semaglutide should inform their patients about the medications’ risks and assess the psychiatric history and evaluate the mental state of patients before starting treatment with semaglutide,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“For patients with history of mental disorders or suicidal ideation/behaviors/attempts, physicians should be cautious and regularly monitor their mental state while taking semaglutide. If needed, the treating physician should involve different specialists, including a psychiatrist and/or clinical psychologists,” he added. 

The study was published online on August 20 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Emerging Concerns

GLP-1 RAs are increasingly prescribed not only for type 2 diabetes but also for weight loss. However, concerns have emerged about a potential association with suicidality, which has prompted a closer look by regulators in the United States and Europe. 

Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues evaluated potential signals of suicidality related to semaglutide and liraglutide using data from global World Health Organization database of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 

They conducted sensitivity analyses including patients with co-reported use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines and using dapagliflozin, metformin, and orlistat as comparators. 

Between November 2000 and August 2023, there were 107 cases of suicidal and/or self-injurious ADRs reported with semaglutide (median age, 48 years; 55% women) and 162 reported with liraglutide (median age 47 years; 61% women). 

The researchers noted that a “significant disproportionality” signal emerged for semaglutide-associated suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 1.45), when compared with comparator drugs. 

This signal remained significant in sensitivity analyses that included patients on concurrent antidepressants (ROR, 4.45) and benzodiazepines (ROR, 4.07), “suggesting that people with anxiety and depressive disorders may be at higher probability of reporting suicidal ideation when medicated with semaglutide,” the authors wrote. 

No significant disproportionality signal was detected for liraglutide regarding suicidal ideation (ROR, 1.04). 

However, the authors noted that pooled data from previous phase 2 and 3 trials on liraglutide vs placebo for weight management identified a potential risk for suicidal ideation, with nine of 3384 participants in the liraglutide group vs two of 1941 in the placebo group reporting suicidal ideation or behavior during the trial (0.27% vs 0.10%). 
 

More Research Needed 

GLP-1 RAs “should be used cautiously until further data are available on this topic,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“Further real-world studies should investigate the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in people treated with these drugs in every-day clinical practice. We categorically discourage off-label use of GLP1-RA and without any medical supervision,” he added.

The coauthors of an invited commentary published with the study note that between 2020 and 2023, GLP-1 RA use rose 594% in younger people, particularly in women.

This “timely and well-conducted study” by Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues adds “an important piece to the very relevant safety issue” related to GLP-1 RAs, wrote Francesco Salvo, MD, PhD, with Université de Bordeaux, and Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, with Université de Montpellier, both in France. 

Pending further studies, the position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommending caution “continues to be reasonable. Whatever the cause, depression or suicidality are rare but extremely severe events and need to be prevented and managed as much as possible. 

“Waiting for more precise data, GPL-1 receptor agonists, and appetite suppressants in general, should be prescribed with great caution in patients with a history of depression or suicidal attempts, while in patients with new onset of depression without other apparent precipitants, immediate discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered,” wrote Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie. 

Outside experts also weighed in on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The paper presents, “at best, weak evidence of an association between semaglutide and suicidality,” Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in the statement. “Signal detection studies in pharmacovigilance databases are good for generating hypotheses but are not suitable for assessing whether there is a causal association between a drug and an outcome.”

Stephen Evans, MSc, emeritus professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, cautioned that the study has “major limitations.”

“This paper is based just on spontaneous reports which are sent to regulatory authorities in the country of the person reporting a suspected adverse reaction. These are sent by health professionals and patients to authorities, but are very subject to bias, including effects of media reporting. The evidence is extremely weak for a genuine effect in this instance,” Mr. Evans said. 

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schoretsanitis reported receiving personal fees from HLS, Dexcel, Saladax, and Thermo Fisher outside the submitted work. Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Douglas has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca. Mr. Evans has no conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new analysis has detected a signal of suicidal ideation associated with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide, especially among individuals concurrently using antidepressants or benzodiazepines. 

However, the investigators and outside experts urge caution in drawing any firm conclusions based on the study’s observations. 

“Clinicians should not interpret these results as proof of causal relationship between suicidal ideation and semaglutide, as our pharmacovigilance study showed an association between the use of semaglutide and reports of suicidal ideation,” study investigator Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Nonetheless, “physicians prescribing semaglutide should inform their patients about the medications’ risks and assess the psychiatric history and evaluate the mental state of patients before starting treatment with semaglutide,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“For patients with history of mental disorders or suicidal ideation/behaviors/attempts, physicians should be cautious and regularly monitor their mental state while taking semaglutide. If needed, the treating physician should involve different specialists, including a psychiatrist and/or clinical psychologists,” he added. 

The study was published online on August 20 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Emerging Concerns

GLP-1 RAs are increasingly prescribed not only for type 2 diabetes but also for weight loss. However, concerns have emerged about a potential association with suicidality, which has prompted a closer look by regulators in the United States and Europe. 

Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues evaluated potential signals of suicidality related to semaglutide and liraglutide using data from global World Health Organization database of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 

They conducted sensitivity analyses including patients with co-reported use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines and using dapagliflozin, metformin, and orlistat as comparators. 

Between November 2000 and August 2023, there were 107 cases of suicidal and/or self-injurious ADRs reported with semaglutide (median age, 48 years; 55% women) and 162 reported with liraglutide (median age 47 years; 61% women). 

The researchers noted that a “significant disproportionality” signal emerged for semaglutide-associated suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 1.45), when compared with comparator drugs. 

This signal remained significant in sensitivity analyses that included patients on concurrent antidepressants (ROR, 4.45) and benzodiazepines (ROR, 4.07), “suggesting that people with anxiety and depressive disorders may be at higher probability of reporting suicidal ideation when medicated with semaglutide,” the authors wrote. 

No significant disproportionality signal was detected for liraglutide regarding suicidal ideation (ROR, 1.04). 

However, the authors noted that pooled data from previous phase 2 and 3 trials on liraglutide vs placebo for weight management identified a potential risk for suicidal ideation, with nine of 3384 participants in the liraglutide group vs two of 1941 in the placebo group reporting suicidal ideation or behavior during the trial (0.27% vs 0.10%). 
 

More Research Needed 

GLP-1 RAs “should be used cautiously until further data are available on this topic,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“Further real-world studies should investigate the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in people treated with these drugs in every-day clinical practice. We categorically discourage off-label use of GLP1-RA and without any medical supervision,” he added.

The coauthors of an invited commentary published with the study note that between 2020 and 2023, GLP-1 RA use rose 594% in younger people, particularly in women.

This “timely and well-conducted study” by Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues adds “an important piece to the very relevant safety issue” related to GLP-1 RAs, wrote Francesco Salvo, MD, PhD, with Université de Bordeaux, and Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, with Université de Montpellier, both in France. 

Pending further studies, the position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommending caution “continues to be reasonable. Whatever the cause, depression or suicidality are rare but extremely severe events and need to be prevented and managed as much as possible. 

“Waiting for more precise data, GPL-1 receptor agonists, and appetite suppressants in general, should be prescribed with great caution in patients with a history of depression or suicidal attempts, while in patients with new onset of depression without other apparent precipitants, immediate discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered,” wrote Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie. 

Outside experts also weighed in on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The paper presents, “at best, weak evidence of an association between semaglutide and suicidality,” Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in the statement. “Signal detection studies in pharmacovigilance databases are good for generating hypotheses but are not suitable for assessing whether there is a causal association between a drug and an outcome.”

Stephen Evans, MSc, emeritus professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, cautioned that the study has “major limitations.”

“This paper is based just on spontaneous reports which are sent to regulatory authorities in the country of the person reporting a suspected adverse reaction. These are sent by health professionals and patients to authorities, but are very subject to bias, including effects of media reporting. The evidence is extremely weak for a genuine effect in this instance,” Mr. Evans said. 

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schoretsanitis reported receiving personal fees from HLS, Dexcel, Saladax, and Thermo Fisher outside the submitted work. Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Douglas has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca. Mr. Evans has no conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A new analysis has detected a signal of suicidal ideation associated with the glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide, especially among individuals concurrently using antidepressants or benzodiazepines. 

However, the investigators and outside experts urge caution in drawing any firm conclusions based on the study’s observations. 

“Clinicians should not interpret these results as proof of causal relationship between suicidal ideation and semaglutide, as our pharmacovigilance study showed an association between the use of semaglutide and reports of suicidal ideation,” study investigator Georgios Schoretsanitis, MD, PhD, Department of Psychiatry, The Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, New York, told this news organization.

Nonetheless, “physicians prescribing semaglutide should inform their patients about the medications’ risks and assess the psychiatric history and evaluate the mental state of patients before starting treatment with semaglutide,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“For patients with history of mental disorders or suicidal ideation/behaviors/attempts, physicians should be cautious and regularly monitor their mental state while taking semaglutide. If needed, the treating physician should involve different specialists, including a psychiatrist and/or clinical psychologists,” he added. 

The study was published online on August 20 in JAMA Network Open. 
 

Emerging Concerns

GLP-1 RAs are increasingly prescribed not only for type 2 diabetes but also for weight loss. However, concerns have emerged about a potential association with suicidality, which has prompted a closer look by regulators in the United States and Europe. 

Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues evaluated potential signals of suicidality related to semaglutide and liraglutide using data from global World Health Organization database of suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs). 

They conducted sensitivity analyses including patients with co-reported use of antidepressants and benzodiazepines and using dapagliflozin, metformin, and orlistat as comparators. 

Between November 2000 and August 2023, there were 107 cases of suicidal and/or self-injurious ADRs reported with semaglutide (median age, 48 years; 55% women) and 162 reported with liraglutide (median age 47 years; 61% women). 

The researchers noted that a “significant disproportionality” signal emerged for semaglutide-associated suicidal ideation (reporting odds ratio [ROR], 1.45), when compared with comparator drugs. 

This signal remained significant in sensitivity analyses that included patients on concurrent antidepressants (ROR, 4.45) and benzodiazepines (ROR, 4.07), “suggesting that people with anxiety and depressive disorders may be at higher probability of reporting suicidal ideation when medicated with semaglutide,” the authors wrote. 

No significant disproportionality signal was detected for liraglutide regarding suicidal ideation (ROR, 1.04). 

However, the authors noted that pooled data from previous phase 2 and 3 trials on liraglutide vs placebo for weight management identified a potential risk for suicidal ideation, with nine of 3384 participants in the liraglutide group vs two of 1941 in the placebo group reporting suicidal ideation or behavior during the trial (0.27% vs 0.10%). 
 

More Research Needed 

GLP-1 RAs “should be used cautiously until further data are available on this topic,” Dr. Schoretsanitis said. 

“Further real-world studies should investigate the risk of suicidal ideation or behavior in people treated with these drugs in every-day clinical practice. We categorically discourage off-label use of GLP1-RA and without any medical supervision,” he added.

The coauthors of an invited commentary published with the study note that between 2020 and 2023, GLP-1 RA use rose 594% in younger people, particularly in women.

This “timely and well-conducted study” by Dr. Schoretsanitis and colleagues adds “an important piece to the very relevant safety issue” related to GLP-1 RAs, wrote Francesco Salvo, MD, PhD, with Université de Bordeaux, and Jean-Luc Faillie, MD, PhD, with Université de Montpellier, both in France. 

Pending further studies, the position of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommending caution “continues to be reasonable. Whatever the cause, depression or suicidality are rare but extremely severe events and need to be prevented and managed as much as possible. 

“Waiting for more precise data, GPL-1 receptor agonists, and appetite suppressants in general, should be prescribed with great caution in patients with a history of depression or suicidal attempts, while in patients with new onset of depression without other apparent precipitants, immediate discontinuation of GLP-1 receptor agonists should be considered,” wrote Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie. 

Outside experts also weighed in on the study in a statement from the UK nonprofit Science Media Centre. 

The paper presents, “at best, weak evidence of an association between semaglutide and suicidality,” Ian Douglas, PhD, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom, said in the statement. “Signal detection studies in pharmacovigilance databases are good for generating hypotheses but are not suitable for assessing whether there is a causal association between a drug and an outcome.”

Stephen Evans, MSc, emeritus professor of pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, cautioned that the study has “major limitations.”

“This paper is based just on spontaneous reports which are sent to regulatory authorities in the country of the person reporting a suspected adverse reaction. These are sent by health professionals and patients to authorities, but are very subject to bias, including effects of media reporting. The evidence is extremely weak for a genuine effect in this instance,” Mr. Evans said. 

The study had no specific funding. Dr. Schoretsanitis reported receiving personal fees from HLS, Dexcel, Saladax, and Thermo Fisher outside the submitted work. Dr. Salvo and Dr. Faillie have no conflicts of interest. Dr. Douglas has received research grants from GSK and AstraZeneca. Mr. Evans has no conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

New research provides more evidence that inflammation may contribute to the development of psychiatric disorders and suggests that measuring certain inflammatory biomarkers may aid in the early identification of individuals at high risk.

Using large-scale datasets, researchers found that elevated levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, particularly leukocytes, haptoglobin, and C-reactive protein (CRP), and lower levels of anti-inflammatory immunoglobulin G (IgG) were associated with an increased risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Individuals with psychiatric disorders had persistently higher levels of leukocytes and haptoglobin, as well as persistently lower levels of IgG, than controls during the 30 years before diagnosis, which suggest “long-term processes and may aid in the identification of individuals at high risk,” the researchers wrote. 

In addition, a higher level of leukocytes was consistently associated with increased odds of depression across different methods of Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, “indicating a possible causal relationship between leukocytes and depression,” they said. 

The study, with first author Yu Zeng, MSc, with the Mental Health Center and West China Biomedical Big Data Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry. 
 

Inflammatory Phenotype

Individuals with psychiatric disorders have been found to have elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers, but prospective evidence is limited regarding the association between inflammatory biomarkers and subsequent psychiatric disorders risk. 

To investigate further, the researchers employed a “triangulation” approach consisting of an exploration dataset of 585,279 adults in the Swedish AMORIS cohort with no prior psychiatric diagnoses and a measurement of at least one inflammatory biomarker, a validation dataset of 485,620 UK Biobank participants, and genetic and MR analyses using genome-wide association study summary statistics.

In the AMORIS cohort, individuals with a higher than median level of leukocytes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11), haptoglobin (HR, 1.13), or CRP (HR, 1.02) had an elevated risk for any psychiatric disorder. In contrast, there was an inverse association for IgG level (HR, 0.92). 

“The estimates were comparable for depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, specifically, and these results were largely validated in the UK Biobank,” the authors reported. 

In trajectory analyses, compared with controls, individuals with psychiatric disorders had higher leukocyte and haptoglobin levels and lower IgG up to three decades before being diagnosed. 

The MR analysis suggested a possible causal relationship between leukocytes and depression. 

The underlying mechanisms for the associations of serum leukocytes, haptoglobin, CRP, and IgG with psychiatry disorders remain unclear.

“Possible explanations mainly include blood-brain barrier disruption, microglia activation, neurotransmission impairment, and other interactions between inflammations and neuropathology,” the researchers wrote. 

A related paper published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry looked at trajectories of inflammation in childhood and risk for mental and cardiometabolic disorders in adulthood. 

This longitudinal cohort study found that having persistently raised levels of inflammation as measured by CRP throughout childhood and adolescence, peaking at age 9 years, were associated with an increased risk of developing psychosis disorder, severe depression, and higher levels of insulin resistance.
 

Support for Precision Psychiatry

This study is “another strong indication that inflammation plays a role in depression,” Andrew H. Miller, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the behavioral immunology program, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“The work adds to the mounting data that there exists an inflammatory phenotype of depression that may uniquely respond to treatment and may have a unique trajectory,” Dr. Miller said. 

“Eventually the field will want to embrace this novel phenotype and better understand how to recognize it and treat it. This is our entrée into precision psychiatry where we identify the right treatment for the right patient at the right time based on an understanding of the underlying cause of their illness,” Dr. Miller added. 

Also weighing in, Alexander B. Niculescu III, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and medical neuroscience, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, cautioned that these biomarkers are “very nonspecific and are likely related to these subjects that go on to develop psychiatric disorders having more stressful, adverse life trajectories.”

“There are better, more specific blood biomarkers for psychiatric disorders already available,” Dr. Niculescu told this news organization.

His group recently reported that a panel of blood-based biomarkers can distinguish between depression and bipolar disorder, predict a person’s future risk for these disorders, and inform more tailored medication choices. 

Notably, they observed a strong circadian clock gene component to mood disorders, which helps explain why some patients’ conditions become worse with seasonal changes. It also explains the sleep alterations that occur among patients with mood disorders, they said.

This study had no commercial funding. Yu Zeng and Dr. Miller had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Niculescu is a cofounder of MindX Sciences and is listed as inventor on a patent application filed by Indiana University.
 

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

New research provides more evidence that inflammation may contribute to the development of psychiatric disorders and suggests that measuring certain inflammatory biomarkers may aid in the early identification of individuals at high risk.

Using large-scale datasets, researchers found that elevated levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, particularly leukocytes, haptoglobin, and C-reactive protein (CRP), and lower levels of anti-inflammatory immunoglobulin G (IgG) were associated with an increased risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Individuals with psychiatric disorders had persistently higher levels of leukocytes and haptoglobin, as well as persistently lower levels of IgG, than controls during the 30 years before diagnosis, which suggest “long-term processes and may aid in the identification of individuals at high risk,” the researchers wrote. 

In addition, a higher level of leukocytes was consistently associated with increased odds of depression across different methods of Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, “indicating a possible causal relationship between leukocytes and depression,” they said. 

The study, with first author Yu Zeng, MSc, with the Mental Health Center and West China Biomedical Big Data Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry. 
 

Inflammatory Phenotype

Individuals with psychiatric disorders have been found to have elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers, but prospective evidence is limited regarding the association between inflammatory biomarkers and subsequent psychiatric disorders risk. 

To investigate further, the researchers employed a “triangulation” approach consisting of an exploration dataset of 585,279 adults in the Swedish AMORIS cohort with no prior psychiatric diagnoses and a measurement of at least one inflammatory biomarker, a validation dataset of 485,620 UK Biobank participants, and genetic and MR analyses using genome-wide association study summary statistics.

In the AMORIS cohort, individuals with a higher than median level of leukocytes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11), haptoglobin (HR, 1.13), or CRP (HR, 1.02) had an elevated risk for any psychiatric disorder. In contrast, there was an inverse association for IgG level (HR, 0.92). 

“The estimates were comparable for depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, specifically, and these results were largely validated in the UK Biobank,” the authors reported. 

In trajectory analyses, compared with controls, individuals with psychiatric disorders had higher leukocyte and haptoglobin levels and lower IgG up to three decades before being diagnosed. 

The MR analysis suggested a possible causal relationship between leukocytes and depression. 

The underlying mechanisms for the associations of serum leukocytes, haptoglobin, CRP, and IgG with psychiatry disorders remain unclear.

“Possible explanations mainly include blood-brain barrier disruption, microglia activation, neurotransmission impairment, and other interactions between inflammations and neuropathology,” the researchers wrote. 

A related paper published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry looked at trajectories of inflammation in childhood and risk for mental and cardiometabolic disorders in adulthood. 

This longitudinal cohort study found that having persistently raised levels of inflammation as measured by CRP throughout childhood and adolescence, peaking at age 9 years, were associated with an increased risk of developing psychosis disorder, severe depression, and higher levels of insulin resistance.
 

Support for Precision Psychiatry

This study is “another strong indication that inflammation plays a role in depression,” Andrew H. Miller, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the behavioral immunology program, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“The work adds to the mounting data that there exists an inflammatory phenotype of depression that may uniquely respond to treatment and may have a unique trajectory,” Dr. Miller said. 

“Eventually the field will want to embrace this novel phenotype and better understand how to recognize it and treat it. This is our entrée into precision psychiatry where we identify the right treatment for the right patient at the right time based on an understanding of the underlying cause of their illness,” Dr. Miller added. 

Also weighing in, Alexander B. Niculescu III, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and medical neuroscience, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, cautioned that these biomarkers are “very nonspecific and are likely related to these subjects that go on to develop psychiatric disorders having more stressful, adverse life trajectories.”

“There are better, more specific blood biomarkers for psychiatric disorders already available,” Dr. Niculescu told this news organization.

His group recently reported that a panel of blood-based biomarkers can distinguish between depression and bipolar disorder, predict a person’s future risk for these disorders, and inform more tailored medication choices. 

Notably, they observed a strong circadian clock gene component to mood disorders, which helps explain why some patients’ conditions become worse with seasonal changes. It also explains the sleep alterations that occur among patients with mood disorders, they said.

This study had no commercial funding. Yu Zeng and Dr. Miller had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Niculescu is a cofounder of MindX Sciences and is listed as inventor on a patent application filed by Indiana University.
 

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

New research provides more evidence that inflammation may contribute to the development of psychiatric disorders and suggests that measuring certain inflammatory biomarkers may aid in the early identification of individuals at high risk.

Using large-scale datasets, researchers found that elevated levels of certain inflammatory biomarkers, particularly leukocytes, haptoglobin, and C-reactive protein (CRP), and lower levels of anti-inflammatory immunoglobulin G (IgG) were associated with an increased risk for psychiatric disorders. 

Individuals with psychiatric disorders had persistently higher levels of leukocytes and haptoglobin, as well as persistently lower levels of IgG, than controls during the 30 years before diagnosis, which suggest “long-term processes and may aid in the identification of individuals at high risk,” the researchers wrote. 

In addition, a higher level of leukocytes was consistently associated with increased odds of depression across different methods of Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis, “indicating a possible causal relationship between leukocytes and depression,” they said. 

The study, with first author Yu Zeng, MSc, with the Mental Health Center and West China Biomedical Big Data Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry. 
 

Inflammatory Phenotype

Individuals with psychiatric disorders have been found to have elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers, but prospective evidence is limited regarding the association between inflammatory biomarkers and subsequent psychiatric disorders risk. 

To investigate further, the researchers employed a “triangulation” approach consisting of an exploration dataset of 585,279 adults in the Swedish AMORIS cohort with no prior psychiatric diagnoses and a measurement of at least one inflammatory biomarker, a validation dataset of 485,620 UK Biobank participants, and genetic and MR analyses using genome-wide association study summary statistics.

In the AMORIS cohort, individuals with a higher than median level of leukocytes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11), haptoglobin (HR, 1.13), or CRP (HR, 1.02) had an elevated risk for any psychiatric disorder. In contrast, there was an inverse association for IgG level (HR, 0.92). 

“The estimates were comparable for depression, anxiety, and stress-related disorders, specifically, and these results were largely validated in the UK Biobank,” the authors reported. 

In trajectory analyses, compared with controls, individuals with psychiatric disorders had higher leukocyte and haptoglobin levels and lower IgG up to three decades before being diagnosed. 

The MR analysis suggested a possible causal relationship between leukocytes and depression. 

The underlying mechanisms for the associations of serum leukocytes, haptoglobin, CRP, and IgG with psychiatry disorders remain unclear.

“Possible explanations mainly include blood-brain barrier disruption, microglia activation, neurotransmission impairment, and other interactions between inflammations and neuropathology,” the researchers wrote. 

A related paper published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry looked at trajectories of inflammation in childhood and risk for mental and cardiometabolic disorders in adulthood. 

This longitudinal cohort study found that having persistently raised levels of inflammation as measured by CRP throughout childhood and adolescence, peaking at age 9 years, were associated with an increased risk of developing psychosis disorder, severe depression, and higher levels of insulin resistance.
 

Support for Precision Psychiatry

This study is “another strong indication that inflammation plays a role in depression,” Andrew H. Miller, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the behavioral immunology program, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization. 

“The work adds to the mounting data that there exists an inflammatory phenotype of depression that may uniquely respond to treatment and may have a unique trajectory,” Dr. Miller said. 

“Eventually the field will want to embrace this novel phenotype and better understand how to recognize it and treat it. This is our entrée into precision psychiatry where we identify the right treatment for the right patient at the right time based on an understanding of the underlying cause of their illness,” Dr. Miller added. 

Also weighing in, Alexander B. Niculescu III, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and medical neuroscience, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, cautioned that these biomarkers are “very nonspecific and are likely related to these subjects that go on to develop psychiatric disorders having more stressful, adverse life trajectories.”

“There are better, more specific blood biomarkers for psychiatric disorders already available,” Dr. Niculescu told this news organization.

His group recently reported that a panel of blood-based biomarkers can distinguish between depression and bipolar disorder, predict a person’s future risk for these disorders, and inform more tailored medication choices. 

Notably, they observed a strong circadian clock gene component to mood disorders, which helps explain why some patients’ conditions become worse with seasonal changes. It also explains the sleep alterations that occur among patients with mood disorders, they said.

This study had no commercial funding. Yu Zeng and Dr. Miller had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Niculescu is a cofounder of MindX Sciences and is listed as inventor on a patent application filed by Indiana University.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Spouses of patients with cancer face a significantly higher risk for suicide attempts and deaths, especially within the first year after their spouse is diagnosed with cancer, according to an analysis based in Denmark.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has revealed higher levels of psychological distress and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders among spouses of patients with cancer, but less is known about suicidal behaviors among spouses.
• In a recent analysis, researchers assessed the risk for suicide attempts and suicide deaths among the spouses of patients with cancer in a nationwide cohort based in Denmark.
• Researchers collected registry-based data from 1986 to 2016, comparing suicide attempts and deaths between individuals with a spouse diagnosed with cancer and those without. Suicide attempts were identified through The Danish National Patient Register and The Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register, and suicide deaths were identified through The Danish Register of Causes of Death.
• A total of 409,338 spouses of patients with cancer (exposed group) were compared with 2,046,682 matched control participants (unexposed group). The participants were followed from cohort entry until a first suicide attempt, suicide death, death from other causes, emigration, or December 31, 2016, whichever came first.

TAKEAWAY:

• Spouses of patients with cancer had an increased risk for suicide attempts (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28) and suicide deaths (HR, 1.47), especially within the first year after a cancer diagnosis (HR for attempts, 1.45; HR for deaths, 2.56).
• The increased risk for suicide attempts was more pronounced among men (HR, 1.42), those with a lower household income (HR, 1.39), and those with a history of cancer themselves (HR, 1.57).
• Among those who attempted suicide, researchers observed positive associations for most, but not all, cancer types and for cancers diagnosed at regional spread or an advanced stage (HR, 1.66) or an unknown stage (HR, 1.28), as well as following the death of the spouse to cancer (HR, 1.57).
• Researchers also observed an increased risk for suicide death for most, but not all, cancer types and greater increases for cancers diagnosed at more advanced stages (HR, 1.61) or unknown stages (HR, 1.52), as well as following the spouse’s death (HR, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this nationwide cohort study is the first to show that spouses of patients with cancer have an elevated risk of both suicide attempt and suicide death,” the authors concluded. “These findings suggest a need for clinical and societal awareness to prevent suicidal behaviors among spouses of patients with cancer, particularly during the first year following the cancer diagnosis.” 

In an accompanying editorial, experts noted that “the mental health impacts may well be higher in countries that have more restricted healthcare access,” given that Denmark has universal healthcare. The editorialists also noted the “pressing need to integrate spousal health more fully into cancer survivorship care. 

“Psychosocial distress should no longer be a hidden and unaddressed cause of suffering in spouses of patients with cancer,” they wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Qianwei Liu, MD, PhD, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and the accompanying editorial were published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding was one potential limitation, though the researchers tried to control for several important confounders. The result may not be generalizable to other countries with different healthcare systems, cultural contexts, or burdens of cancer and suicidal behaviors.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Forte during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor

disclosed receiving grants from the Swedish Cancer Society. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Spouses of patients with cancer face a significantly higher risk for suicide attempts and deaths, especially within the first year after their spouse is diagnosed with cancer, according to an analysis based in Denmark.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has revealed higher levels of psychological distress and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders among spouses of patients with cancer, but less is known about suicidal behaviors among spouses.
• In a recent analysis, researchers assessed the risk for suicide attempts and suicide deaths among the spouses of patients with cancer in a nationwide cohort based in Denmark.
• Researchers collected registry-based data from 1986 to 2016, comparing suicide attempts and deaths between individuals with a spouse diagnosed with cancer and those without. Suicide attempts were identified through The Danish National Patient Register and The Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register, and suicide deaths were identified through The Danish Register of Causes of Death.
• A total of 409,338 spouses of patients with cancer (exposed group) were compared with 2,046,682 matched control participants (unexposed group). The participants were followed from cohort entry until a first suicide attempt, suicide death, death from other causes, emigration, or December 31, 2016, whichever came first.

TAKEAWAY:

• Spouses of patients with cancer had an increased risk for suicide attempts (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28) and suicide deaths (HR, 1.47), especially within the first year after a cancer diagnosis (HR for attempts, 1.45; HR for deaths, 2.56).
• The increased risk for suicide attempts was more pronounced among men (HR, 1.42), those with a lower household income (HR, 1.39), and those with a history of cancer themselves (HR, 1.57).
• Among those who attempted suicide, researchers observed positive associations for most, but not all, cancer types and for cancers diagnosed at regional spread or an advanced stage (HR, 1.66) or an unknown stage (HR, 1.28), as well as following the death of the spouse to cancer (HR, 1.57).
• Researchers also observed an increased risk for suicide death for most, but not all, cancer types and greater increases for cancers diagnosed at more advanced stages (HR, 1.61) or unknown stages (HR, 1.52), as well as following the spouse’s death (HR, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this nationwide cohort study is the first to show that spouses of patients with cancer have an elevated risk of both suicide attempt and suicide death,” the authors concluded. “These findings suggest a need for clinical and societal awareness to prevent suicidal behaviors among spouses of patients with cancer, particularly during the first year following the cancer diagnosis.” 

In an accompanying editorial, experts noted that “the mental health impacts may well be higher in countries that have more restricted healthcare access,” given that Denmark has universal healthcare. The editorialists also noted the “pressing need to integrate spousal health more fully into cancer survivorship care. 

“Psychosocial distress should no longer be a hidden and unaddressed cause of suffering in spouses of patients with cancer,” they wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Qianwei Liu, MD, PhD, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and the accompanying editorial were published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding was one potential limitation, though the researchers tried to control for several important confounders. The result may not be generalizable to other countries with different healthcare systems, cultural contexts, or burdens of cancer and suicidal behaviors.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Forte during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor

disclosed receiving grants from the Swedish Cancer Society. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Spouses of patients with cancer face a significantly higher risk for suicide attempts and deaths, especially within the first year after their spouse is diagnosed with cancer, according to an analysis based in Denmark.

METHODOLOGY:

• A growing body of evidence has revealed higher levels of psychological distress and an increased risk for psychiatric disorders among spouses of patients with cancer, but less is known about suicidal behaviors among spouses.
• In a recent analysis, researchers assessed the risk for suicide attempts and suicide deaths among the spouses of patients with cancer in a nationwide cohort based in Denmark.
• Researchers collected registry-based data from 1986 to 2016, comparing suicide attempts and deaths between individuals with a spouse diagnosed with cancer and those without. Suicide attempts were identified through The Danish National Patient Register and The Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register, and suicide deaths were identified through The Danish Register of Causes of Death.
• A total of 409,338 spouses of patients with cancer (exposed group) were compared with 2,046,682 matched control participants (unexposed group). The participants were followed from cohort entry until a first suicide attempt, suicide death, death from other causes, emigration, or December 31, 2016, whichever came first.

TAKEAWAY:

• Spouses of patients with cancer had an increased risk for suicide attempts (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28) and suicide deaths (HR, 1.47), especially within the first year after a cancer diagnosis (HR for attempts, 1.45; HR for deaths, 2.56).
• The increased risk for suicide attempts was more pronounced among men (HR, 1.42), those with a lower household income (HR, 1.39), and those with a history of cancer themselves (HR, 1.57).
• Among those who attempted suicide, researchers observed positive associations for most, but not all, cancer types and for cancers diagnosed at regional spread or an advanced stage (HR, 1.66) or an unknown stage (HR, 1.28), as well as following the death of the spouse to cancer (HR, 1.57).
• Researchers also observed an increased risk for suicide death for most, but not all, cancer types and greater increases for cancers diagnosed at more advanced stages (HR, 1.61) or unknown stages (HR, 1.52), as well as following the spouse’s death (HR, 1.70).

IN PRACTICE:

“To our knowledge, this nationwide cohort study is the first to show that spouses of patients with cancer have an elevated risk of both suicide attempt and suicide death,” the authors concluded. “These findings suggest a need for clinical and societal awareness to prevent suicidal behaviors among spouses of patients with cancer, particularly during the first year following the cancer diagnosis.” 

In an accompanying editorial, experts noted that “the mental health impacts may well be higher in countries that have more restricted healthcare access,” given that Denmark has universal healthcare. The editorialists also noted the “pressing need to integrate spousal health more fully into cancer survivorship care. 

“Psychosocial distress should no longer be a hidden and unaddressed cause of suffering in spouses of patients with cancer,” they wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Qianwei Liu, MD, PhD, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and the accompanying editorial were published online in JAMA Oncology.

LIMITATIONS:

Residual confounding was one potential limitation, though the researchers tried to control for several important confounders. The result may not be generalizable to other countries with different healthcare systems, cultural contexts, or burdens of cancer and suicidal behaviors.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor reported receiving grants from Forte during the conduct of the study. Another coauthor

disclosed receiving grants from the Swedish Cancer Society. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Older adults with untreated hypertension have a 36% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared with those without hypertension and a 42% increased risk for AD compared with those with treated hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this meta-analysis, researchers analyzed the data of 31,250 participants aged 60 years or older (mean age, 72.1 years; 41% men) from 14 community-based studies across 14 countries.
• Mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and blood pressure measurements, hypertension diagnosis, and antihypertensive medication use were recorded.
• Overall, 35.9% had no history of hypertension or antihypertensive medication use, 50.7% had a history of hypertension with antihypertensive medication use, and 9.4% had a history of hypertension without antihypertensive medication use.
• The main outcomes were AD and non-AD dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 1415 participants developed AD, and 681 developed non-AD dementia.
• Participants with untreated hypertension had a 36% increased risk for AD compared with healthy controls (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; P = .041) and a 42% increased risk for AD (HR, 1.42; P = .013) compared with those with treated hypertension.
• Compared with healthy controls, patients with treated hypertension did not show an elevated risk for AD (HR, 0.961; P = .6644).
• Patients with both treated (HR, 1.285; P = .027) and untreated (HR, 1.693; P = .003) hypertension had an increased risk for non-AD dementia compared with healthy controls. Patients with treated and untreated hypertension had a similar risk for non-AD dementia.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that treating high blood pressure as a person ages continues to be a crucial factor in reducing their risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” the lead author Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Varied definitions for hypertension across different locations might have led to discrepancies in diagnosis. Additionally, the study did not account for potential confounders such as stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart disease, which may act as mediators rather than covariates. Furthermore, the study did not report mortality data, which may have affected the interpretation of dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported ties with several institutions and pharmaceutical companies outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Older adults with untreated hypertension have a 36% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared with those without hypertension and a 42% increased risk for AD compared with those with treated hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this meta-analysis, researchers analyzed the data of 31,250 participants aged 60 years or older (mean age, 72.1 years; 41% men) from 14 community-based studies across 14 countries.
• Mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and blood pressure measurements, hypertension diagnosis, and antihypertensive medication use were recorded.
• Overall, 35.9% had no history of hypertension or antihypertensive medication use, 50.7% had a history of hypertension with antihypertensive medication use, and 9.4% had a history of hypertension without antihypertensive medication use.
• The main outcomes were AD and non-AD dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 1415 participants developed AD, and 681 developed non-AD dementia.
• Participants with untreated hypertension had a 36% increased risk for AD compared with healthy controls (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; P = .041) and a 42% increased risk for AD (HR, 1.42; P = .013) compared with those with treated hypertension.
• Compared with healthy controls, patients with treated hypertension did not show an elevated risk for AD (HR, 0.961; P = .6644).
• Patients with both treated (HR, 1.285; P = .027) and untreated (HR, 1.693; P = .003) hypertension had an increased risk for non-AD dementia compared with healthy controls. Patients with treated and untreated hypertension had a similar risk for non-AD dementia.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that treating high blood pressure as a person ages continues to be a crucial factor in reducing their risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” the lead author Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Varied definitions for hypertension across different locations might have led to discrepancies in diagnosis. Additionally, the study did not account for potential confounders such as stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart disease, which may act as mediators rather than covariates. Furthermore, the study did not report mortality data, which may have affected the interpretation of dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported ties with several institutions and pharmaceutical companies outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Older adults with untreated hypertension have a 36% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared with those without hypertension and a 42% increased risk for AD compared with those with treated hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this meta-analysis, researchers analyzed the data of 31,250 participants aged 60 years or older (mean age, 72.1 years; 41% men) from 14 community-based studies across 14 countries.
• Mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and blood pressure measurements, hypertension diagnosis, and antihypertensive medication use were recorded.
• Overall, 35.9% had no history of hypertension or antihypertensive medication use, 50.7% had a history of hypertension with antihypertensive medication use, and 9.4% had a history of hypertension without antihypertensive medication use.
• The main outcomes were AD and non-AD dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 1415 participants developed AD, and 681 developed non-AD dementia.
• Participants with untreated hypertension had a 36% increased risk for AD compared with healthy controls (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; P = .041) and a 42% increased risk for AD (HR, 1.42; P = .013) compared with those with treated hypertension.
• Compared with healthy controls, patients with treated hypertension did not show an elevated risk for AD (HR, 0.961; P = .6644).
• Patients with both treated (HR, 1.285; P = .027) and untreated (HR, 1.693; P = .003) hypertension had an increased risk for non-AD dementia compared with healthy controls. Patients with treated and untreated hypertension had a similar risk for non-AD dementia.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that treating high blood pressure as a person ages continues to be a crucial factor in reducing their risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” the lead author Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Varied definitions for hypertension across different locations might have led to discrepancies in diagnosis. Additionally, the study did not account for potential confounders such as stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart disease, which may act as mediators rather than covariates. Furthermore, the study did not report mortality data, which may have affected the interpretation of dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported ties with several institutions and pharmaceutical companies outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

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

TOPLINE:

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) via telehealth improves pain-related function and biopsychosocial outcomes in veterans with chronic pain as compared with usual care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial of 811 veterans who had moderate to severe chronic pain and were recruited from three Veterans Affairs facilities in the United States.
• Participants were divided into three groups: Group MBI (270), self-paced MBI (271), and usual care (270), with interventions lasting 8 weeks.
• The primary outcome was pain-related function measured using a scale on interference from pain in areas like mood, walking, work, relationships, and sleep at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year.
• Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, participation in social roles and activities, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

TAKEAWAY:

• Pain-related function significantly improved in participants in both the MBI groups versus usual care group, with a mean difference of −0.4 (95% CI, −0.7 to −0.2) for group MBI and −0.7 (95% CI, −1.0 to −0.4) for self-paced MBI (P < .001).
• Compared with the usual care group, both the MBI groups had significantly improved secondary outcomes, including pain intensity, depression, and PTSD.
• The probability of achieving 30% improvement in pain-related function was higher for group MBI at 10 weeks and 6 months and for self-paced MBI at all three timepoints.
• No significant differences were found between the MBI groups for primary and secondary outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“The viability and similarity of both these approaches for delivering MBIs increase patient options for meeting their individual needs and could help accelerate and improve the implementation of nonpharmacological pain treatment in health care systems,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Diana J. Burgess, PhD, of the Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, VA Health Systems Research in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS:

The trial was not designed to compare less resource-intensive MBIs with more intensive mindfulness-based stress reduction programs or in-person MBIs. The study did not address cost-effectiveness or control for time, attention, and other contextual factors. The high nonresponse rate (81%) to initial recruitment may have affected the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Pain Management Collaboratory–Pragmatic Clinical Trials Demonstration. Various authors reported grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the National Institute of Nursing Research.

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

TOPLINE:

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) via telehealth improves pain-related function and biopsychosocial outcomes in veterans with chronic pain as compared with usual care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial of 811 veterans who had moderate to severe chronic pain and were recruited from three Veterans Affairs facilities in the United States.
• Participants were divided into three groups: Group MBI (270), self-paced MBI (271), and usual care (270), with interventions lasting 8 weeks.
• The primary outcome was pain-related function measured using a scale on interference from pain in areas like mood, walking, work, relationships, and sleep at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year.
• Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, participation in social roles and activities, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

TAKEAWAY:

• Pain-related function significantly improved in participants in both the MBI groups versus usual care group, with a mean difference of −0.4 (95% CI, −0.7 to −0.2) for group MBI and −0.7 (95% CI, −1.0 to −0.4) for self-paced MBI (P < .001).
• Compared with the usual care group, both the MBI groups had significantly improved secondary outcomes, including pain intensity, depression, and PTSD.
• The probability of achieving 30% improvement in pain-related function was higher for group MBI at 10 weeks and 6 months and for self-paced MBI at all three timepoints.
• No significant differences were found between the MBI groups for primary and secondary outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“The viability and similarity of both these approaches for delivering MBIs increase patient options for meeting their individual needs and could help accelerate and improve the implementation of nonpharmacological pain treatment in health care systems,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Diana J. Burgess, PhD, of the Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, VA Health Systems Research in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS:

The trial was not designed to compare less resource-intensive MBIs with more intensive mindfulness-based stress reduction programs or in-person MBIs. The study did not address cost-effectiveness or control for time, attention, and other contextual factors. The high nonresponse rate (81%) to initial recruitment may have affected the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Pain Management Collaboratory–Pragmatic Clinical Trials Demonstration. Various authors reported grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the National Institute of Nursing Research.

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

TOPLINE:

Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) via telehealth improves pain-related function and biopsychosocial outcomes in veterans with chronic pain as compared with usual care.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized clinical trial of 811 veterans who had moderate to severe chronic pain and were recruited from three Veterans Affairs facilities in the United States.
• Participants were divided into three groups: Group MBI (270), self-paced MBI (271), and usual care (270), with interventions lasting 8 weeks.
• The primary outcome was pain-related function measured using a scale on interference from pain in areas like mood, walking, work, relationships, and sleep at 10 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year.
• Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance, participation in social roles and activities, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

TAKEAWAY:

• Pain-related function significantly improved in participants in both the MBI groups versus usual care group, with a mean difference of −0.4 (95% CI, −0.7 to −0.2) for group MBI and −0.7 (95% CI, −1.0 to −0.4) for self-paced MBI (P < .001).
• Compared with the usual care group, both the MBI groups had significantly improved secondary outcomes, including pain intensity, depression, and PTSD.
• The probability of achieving 30% improvement in pain-related function was higher for group MBI at 10 weeks and 6 months and for self-paced MBI at all three timepoints.
• No significant differences were found between the MBI groups for primary and secondary outcomes.

IN PRACTICE:

“The viability and similarity of both these approaches for delivering MBIs increase patient options for meeting their individual needs and could help accelerate and improve the implementation of nonpharmacological pain treatment in health care systems,” the study authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Diana J. Burgess, PhD, of the Center for Care Delivery and Outcomes Research, VA Health Systems Research in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. 

LIMITATIONS:

The trial was not designed to compare less resource-intensive MBIs with more intensive mindfulness-based stress reduction programs or in-person MBIs. The study did not address cost-effectiveness or control for time, attention, and other contextual factors. The high nonresponse rate (81%) to initial recruitment may have affected the generalizability of the findings.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Pain Management Collaboratory–Pragmatic Clinical Trials Demonstration. Various authors reported grants from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the National Institute of Nursing Research.

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

New research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that COVID-19 infection can be hard on mental health. 

The UK study of more than 18 million adults showed an elevated rate of mental illness, including depression and serious mental illness, for up to a year following a bout of COVID-19, particularly in those with severe COVID who had not been vaccinated. 

Importantly, vaccination appeared to mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on mental health, the investigators found. 

“Our results highlight the importance COVID-19 vaccination in the general population and particularly among those with mental illnesses, who may be at higher risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse outcomes following COVID-19,” first author Venexia Walker, PhD, with University of Bristol, United Kingdom, said in a news release. 

The study was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Novel Data

“Before this study, a number of papers had looked at associations of COVID diagnosis with mental ill health, and broadly speaking, they had reported associations of different magnitudes,” study author Jonathan A. C. Sterne, PhD, with University of Bristol, noted in a journal podcast. 

“Some studies were restricted to patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and some not and the duration of follow-up varied. And importantly, the nature of COVID-19 changed profoundly as vaccination became available and there was little data on the impact of vaccination on associations of COVID-19 with subsequent mental ill health,” Dr. Sterne said. 

The UK study was conducted in three cohorts — a cohort of about 18.6 million people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before a vaccine was available, a cohort of about 14 million adults who were vaccinated, and a cohort of about 3.2 million people who were unvaccinated.

The researchers compared rates of various mental illnesses after COVID-19 with rates before or without COVID-19 and by vaccination status.

Across all cohorts, rates of most mental illnesses examined were “markedly elevated” during the first month following a COVID-19 diagnosis compared with rates before or without COVID-19.

For example, the adjusted hazard ratios for depression (the most common illness) and serious mental illness in the month after COVID-19 were 1.93 and 1.49, respectively, in the prevaccination cohort and 1.79 and 1.45, respectively, in the unvaccinated cohort compared with 1.16 and 0.91 in the vaccinated cohort.

This elevation in the rate of mental illnesses was mainly seen after severe COVID-19 that led to hospitalization and remained higher for up to a year following severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated adults.

For severe COVID-19 with hospitalization, the adjusted hazard ratio for depression in the month following admission was 16.3 in the prevaccine cohort, 15.6 in the unvaccinated cohort, and 12.9 in the vaccinated cohort.

The adjusted hazard ratios for serious mental illness in the month after COVID hospitalization was 9.71 in the prevaccine cohort, 8.75 with no vaccination, and 6.52 with vaccination. 

“Incidences of other mental illnesses were broadly similar to those of depression and serious mental illness, both overall and for COVID-19 with and without hospitalization,” the authors report in their paper.

Consistent with prior research, subgroup analyzes found the association of COVID-19 and mental illness was stronger among older adults and men, with no marked differences by ethnic group.

“We should be concerned about continuing consequences in people who experienced severe COVID-19 early in the pandemic, and they may include a continuing higher incidence of mental ill health, such as depression and serious mental illness,” Dr. Sterne said in the podcast. 

In terms of ongoing booster vaccinations, “people who are advised that they are under vaccinated or recommended for further COVID-19 vaccination, should take those invitations seriously, because by preventing severe COVID-19, which is what vaccination does, you can prevent consequences such as mental illness,” Dr. Sterne added. 

The study was supported by the COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

New research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that COVID-19 infection can be hard on mental health. 

The UK study of more than 18 million adults showed an elevated rate of mental illness, including depression and serious mental illness, for up to a year following a bout of COVID-19, particularly in those with severe COVID who had not been vaccinated. 

Importantly, vaccination appeared to mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on mental health, the investigators found. 

“Our results highlight the importance COVID-19 vaccination in the general population and particularly among those with mental illnesses, who may be at higher risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse outcomes following COVID-19,” first author Venexia Walker, PhD, with University of Bristol, United Kingdom, said in a news release. 

The study was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Novel Data

“Before this study, a number of papers had looked at associations of COVID diagnosis with mental ill health, and broadly speaking, they had reported associations of different magnitudes,” study author Jonathan A. C. Sterne, PhD, with University of Bristol, noted in a journal podcast. 

“Some studies were restricted to patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and some not and the duration of follow-up varied. And importantly, the nature of COVID-19 changed profoundly as vaccination became available and there was little data on the impact of vaccination on associations of COVID-19 with subsequent mental ill health,” Dr. Sterne said. 

The UK study was conducted in three cohorts — a cohort of about 18.6 million people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before a vaccine was available, a cohort of about 14 million adults who were vaccinated, and a cohort of about 3.2 million people who were unvaccinated.

The researchers compared rates of various mental illnesses after COVID-19 with rates before or without COVID-19 and by vaccination status.

Across all cohorts, rates of most mental illnesses examined were “markedly elevated” during the first month following a COVID-19 diagnosis compared with rates before or without COVID-19.

For example, the adjusted hazard ratios for depression (the most common illness) and serious mental illness in the month after COVID-19 were 1.93 and 1.49, respectively, in the prevaccination cohort and 1.79 and 1.45, respectively, in the unvaccinated cohort compared with 1.16 and 0.91 in the vaccinated cohort.

This elevation in the rate of mental illnesses was mainly seen after severe COVID-19 that led to hospitalization and remained higher for up to a year following severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated adults.

For severe COVID-19 with hospitalization, the adjusted hazard ratio for depression in the month following admission was 16.3 in the prevaccine cohort, 15.6 in the unvaccinated cohort, and 12.9 in the vaccinated cohort.

The adjusted hazard ratios for serious mental illness in the month after COVID hospitalization was 9.71 in the prevaccine cohort, 8.75 with no vaccination, and 6.52 with vaccination. 

“Incidences of other mental illnesses were broadly similar to those of depression and serious mental illness, both overall and for COVID-19 with and without hospitalization,” the authors report in their paper.

Consistent with prior research, subgroup analyzes found the association of COVID-19 and mental illness was stronger among older adults and men, with no marked differences by ethnic group.

“We should be concerned about continuing consequences in people who experienced severe COVID-19 early in the pandemic, and they may include a continuing higher incidence of mental ill health, such as depression and serious mental illness,” Dr. Sterne said in the podcast. 

In terms of ongoing booster vaccinations, “people who are advised that they are under vaccinated or recommended for further COVID-19 vaccination, should take those invitations seriously, because by preventing severe COVID-19, which is what vaccination does, you can prevent consequences such as mental illness,” Dr. Sterne added. 

The study was supported by the COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

New research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that COVID-19 infection can be hard on mental health. 

The UK study of more than 18 million adults showed an elevated rate of mental illness, including depression and serious mental illness, for up to a year following a bout of COVID-19, particularly in those with severe COVID who had not been vaccinated. 

Importantly, vaccination appeared to mitigate the adverse effects of COVID-19 on mental health, the investigators found. 

“Our results highlight the importance COVID-19 vaccination in the general population and particularly among those with mental illnesses, who may be at higher risk of both SARS-CoV-2 infection and adverse outcomes following COVID-19,” first author Venexia Walker, PhD, with University of Bristol, United Kingdom, said in a news release. 

The study was published online on August 21 in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Novel Data

“Before this study, a number of papers had looked at associations of COVID diagnosis with mental ill health, and broadly speaking, they had reported associations of different magnitudes,” study author Jonathan A. C. Sterne, PhD, with University of Bristol, noted in a journal podcast. 

“Some studies were restricted to patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 and some not and the duration of follow-up varied. And importantly, the nature of COVID-19 changed profoundly as vaccination became available and there was little data on the impact of vaccination on associations of COVID-19 with subsequent mental ill health,” Dr. Sterne said. 

The UK study was conducted in three cohorts — a cohort of about 18.6 million people who were diagnosed with COVID-19 before a vaccine was available, a cohort of about 14 million adults who were vaccinated, and a cohort of about 3.2 million people who were unvaccinated.

The researchers compared rates of various mental illnesses after COVID-19 with rates before or without COVID-19 and by vaccination status.

Across all cohorts, rates of most mental illnesses examined were “markedly elevated” during the first month following a COVID-19 diagnosis compared with rates before or without COVID-19.

For example, the adjusted hazard ratios for depression (the most common illness) and serious mental illness in the month after COVID-19 were 1.93 and 1.49, respectively, in the prevaccination cohort and 1.79 and 1.45, respectively, in the unvaccinated cohort compared with 1.16 and 0.91 in the vaccinated cohort.

This elevation in the rate of mental illnesses was mainly seen after severe COVID-19 that led to hospitalization and remained higher for up to a year following severe COVID-19 in unvaccinated adults.

For severe COVID-19 with hospitalization, the adjusted hazard ratio for depression in the month following admission was 16.3 in the prevaccine cohort, 15.6 in the unvaccinated cohort, and 12.9 in the vaccinated cohort.

The adjusted hazard ratios for serious mental illness in the month after COVID hospitalization was 9.71 in the prevaccine cohort, 8.75 with no vaccination, and 6.52 with vaccination. 

“Incidences of other mental illnesses were broadly similar to those of depression and serious mental illness, both overall and for COVID-19 with and without hospitalization,” the authors report in their paper.

Consistent with prior research, subgroup analyzes found the association of COVID-19 and mental illness was stronger among older adults and men, with no marked differences by ethnic group.

“We should be concerned about continuing consequences in people who experienced severe COVID-19 early in the pandemic, and they may include a continuing higher incidence of mental ill health, such as depression and serious mental illness,” Dr. Sterne said in the podcast. 

In terms of ongoing booster vaccinations, “people who are advised that they are under vaccinated or recommended for further COVID-19 vaccination, should take those invitations seriously, because by preventing severe COVID-19, which is what vaccination does, you can prevent consequences such as mental illness,” Dr. Sterne added. 

The study was supported by the COVID-19 Longitudinal Health and Wellbeing National Core Study, which is funded by the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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

Most physicians oppose the way standardized relative value units (RVUs) are used to determine performance and compensation, according to Medscape’s 2024 Physicians and RVUs Report. About 6 in 10 survey respondents were unhappy with how RVUs affected them financially, while 7 in 10 said RVUs were poor measures of productivity.

The report analyzed 2024 survey data from 1005 practicing physicians who earn RVUs.

“I’m already mad that the medical field is controlled by health insurers and what they pay and authorize,” said an anesthesiologist in New York. “Then [that approach] is transferred to medical offices and hospitals, where physicians are paid by RVUs.”

Most physicians surveyed produced between 4000 and 8000 RVUs per year. Roughly one in six were high RVU generators, generating more than 10,000 annually.

In most cases, the metric influences earning potential — 42% of doctors surveyed said RVUs affect their salaries to some degree. One quarter said their salary was based entirely on RVUs. More than three fourths of physicians who received performance bonuses said they must meet RVU targets to do so.

“The current RVU system encourages unnecessary procedures, hurting patients,” said an orthopedic surgeon in Maine.

Nearly three fourths of practitioners surveyed said they occasionally to frequently felt pressure to take on more patients as a result of this system.

“I know numerous primary care doctors and specialists who have been forced to increase patient volume to meet RVU goals, and none is happy about it,” said Alok Patel, MD, a pediatric hospitalist with Stanford Hospital in Palo Alto, California. “Plus, patients are definitely not happy about being rushed.”

More than half of respondents said they occasionally or frequently felt compelled by their employer to use higher-level coding, which interferes with a physician’s ethical responsibility to the patient, said Arthur L. Caplan, PhD, a bioethicist at NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City.

“Rather than rewarding excellence or good outcomes, you’re kind of rewarding procedures and volume,” said Dr. Caplan. “It’s more than pressure; it’s expected.”

Nearly 6 in 10 physicians said that the method for calculating reimbursements was unfair. Almost half said that they weren’t happy with how their workplace uses RVUs.

A few respondents said that their RVU model, which is often based on what Dr. Patel called an “overly complicated algorithm,” did not account for the time spent on tasks or the fact that some patients miss appointments. RVUs also rely on factors outside the control of a physician, such as location and patient volume, said one doctor.

The model can also lower the level of care patients receive, Dr. Patel said.

“I know primary care doctors who work in RVU-based systems and simply cannot take the necessary time — even if it’s 30-45 minutes — to thoroughly assess a patient, when the model forces them to take on 15-minute encounters.”

Finally, over half of clinicians said alternatives to the RVU system would be more effective, and 77% suggested including qualitative data. One respondent recommended incorporating time spent doing paperwork and communicating with patients, complexity of conditions, and medication management.

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