Clinical Psychiatry News

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tardive dyskinesia is a chronic, potentially irreversible, hyperkinetic movement disorder. And the challenge with tardive dyskinesia is that it’s underdiagnosed and undertreated. With the expanded use of dopamine receptor–blocking agents, there are about 7.5 million Americans who are now exposed and at risk for tardive dyskinesia.

It’s thought that about 500,000-750,000 of these patients may in fact have tardive dyskinesia, but only 15% are treated. So why are people not being treated for tardive dyskinesia? Well, there are a number of possible answers.

Until a few years ago, there were no Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia, and these antipsychotic medications that the patients were taking, in many cases, were potentially lifesaving drugs, so they couldn’t simply be stopped. As a result of that, I think physicians developed a certain psychic blindness to identifying tardive dyskinesia, because it was their drugs that were causing the disease and yet they couldn’t be stopped. So, there really wasn’t much they could do in terms of making the diagnosis.

In addition, they were trained that tardive dyskinesia doesn’t have much impact on patients. But we now know, through surveys and other studies, that tardive dyskinesia can have a tremendous impact on patients and on your ability to treat the patient’s underlying mental health issues. It’s estimated that 50% of patients with tardive dyskinesia actually reduce the amount of antipsychotic medication they’re taking on their own, and about 40% may in fact stop their antipsychotic medication altogether.

Thirty-five percent of patients stopped seeing their doctor after they developed tardive dyskinesia, and about 20% of patients actually told other patients not to take their antipsychotic medication. So, tardive dyskinesia is impacting your ability to treat patients. In addition, it impacts the patients themselves. Nearly three out of four patients with tardive dyskinesia said, in surveys, that it caused severe impact on their psychosocial functioning.

It also impacted caregivers, with 70% of caregivers saying that the patients with tardive dyskinesia made them more anxious and limited them socially. So, we have this tremendous impact from tardive dyskinesia.

In addition, physicians sometimes don’t identify tardive dyskinesia correctly. They mistake it for another movement disorder: drug-induced parkinsonism. Or it falls under the rubric of extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS), and they were trained that you treat EPS with benztropine. The challenge with that is that benztropine is only indicated for acute dystonia or for drug-induced parkinsonism. It actually makes tardive dyskinesia worse. And, in the product insert for benztropine, it’s recommended that it should not be used in tardive dyskinesia. So if you have a patient whom you suspect has tardive dyskinesia, you have to discontinue the benztropine. That’s a really important first step.

And then, what else should you do? There are now two FDA-approved treatments for tardive dyskinesia. These are valbenazine and deutetrabenazine. Both of these drugs have been demonstrated in large double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to reduce tardive dyskinesia, as measured by the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale, by about 30%. These drugs have been demonstrated to be safe and well tolerated, with the main side effect being somnolence.

Some people can also develop parkinsonism. Why could there be Parkinsonism? This is because vesicular monoamine transporter 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors work by reducing the amount of dopamine that can be packaged in the presynaptic neuron. That means that less dopamine is available to the synapse, and this reduces movement. The American Psychiatric Association has issued guidelines for the treatment of tardive dyskinesia and has said that moderate to severe tardive dyskinesia should be treated first-line with VMAT2 inhibitors and that mild tardive dyskinesia should also be treated with VMAT2 inhibitors if the tardive dyskinesia is impacting the patient.

Given the impact that tardive dyskinesia has on patients and caregivers, and the physician’s ability to treat these patients’ mental health issues, we need to become aggressive and treat the tardive dyskinesia so that patients can improve and be able to have their movements treated without impacting their underlying mental health issues.

Daniel Kremens, professor, Department of Neurology, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, codirector, Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Division, Jack and Vickie Farber Center for Neuroscience, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has disclosed relevant financial relationships with Teva Pharmaceuticals, AbbVie, Merz, Allergan, Bial, Cerevel, Amneal, Acadia, Supernus, Adamas, Acorda, Kyowa Kirin, and Neurocrine.

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

Using a large, real-world population, researchers have developed models that predict cognitive decline in amyloid-positive patients with either mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia.

The models may help clinicians better answer common questions from their patients about their rate of cognitive decline, noted the investigators, led by Pieter J. van der Veere, MD, Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Easy-to-Use Prototype

On average, it takes 4 years for MCI to progress to dementia. While new disease-modifying drugs targeting amyloid may slow progression, whether this effect is clinically meaningful is debatable, the investigators noted.

Earlier published models predicting cognitive decline either are limited to patients with MCI or haven’t been developed for easy clinical use, they added.

For the single-center study, researchers selected 961 amyloid-positive patients, mean age 65 years, who had at least two longitudinal Mini-Mental State Examinations (MMSEs). Of these, 310 had MCI, and 651 had mild dementia; 48% were women, and over 90% were White.

Researchers used linear mixed modeling to predict MMSE over time. They included age, sex, baseline MMSE, apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 status, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid (Aß) 1-42 and plasma phosphorylated-tau markers, and MRI total brain and hippocampal volume measures in the various models, including the final biomarker prediction models.

At follow-up, investigators found that the yearly decline in MMSEs increased in patients with both MCI and mild dementia. In MCI, the average MMSE declined from 26.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.2-26.7) at baseline to 21.0 (95% CI, 20.2-21.7) after 5 years.

In mild dementia, the average MMSE declined from 22.4 (95% CI, 22.0-22.7) to 7.8 (95% CI, 6.8-8.9) at 5 years.

The predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 20 (indicating mild dementia) for a hypothetical patient with MCI and a baseline MMSE of 28 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 925 pg/mL was 6 years (95% CI, 5.4-6.7 years).

However, with a hypothetical drug treatment that reduces the rate of decline by 30%, the patient would not reach the stage of moderate dementia for 8.6 years.

For a hypothetical patient with mild dementia with a baseline MMSE of 20 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 625 pg/mL, the predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 15 was 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.1-2.5), or 3.3 years if decline is reduced by 30% with drug treatment.

External validation of the prediction models using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a longitudinal cohort of patients not cognitively impaired or with MCI or dementia, showed comparable performance between the model-building approaches.

Researchers have incorporated the models in an easy-to-use calculator as a prototype tool that physicians can use to discuss prognosis, the uncertainty surrounding the predictions, and the impact of intervention strategies with patients.

Future prediction models may be able to predict patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and daily functioning, the researchers noted.

“Until then, there is an important role for clinicians in translating the observed and predicted cognitive functions,” they wrote.

Compared with other studies predicting the MMSE decline using different statistical techniques, these new models showed similar or even better predictive performance while requiring less or similar information, the investigators noted.

The study used MMSE as a measure of cognition, but there may be intraindividual variation in these measures among cognitively normal patients, and those with cognitive decline may score lower if measurements are taken later in the day. Another study limitation was that the models were built for use in memory clinics, so generalizability to the general population could be limited.

The study was supported by Eisai, ZonMW, and Health~Holland Top Sector Life Sciences & Health. See paper for financial disclosures.

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

Using a large, real-world population, researchers have developed models that predict cognitive decline in amyloid-positive patients with either mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia.

The models may help clinicians better answer common questions from their patients about their rate of cognitive decline, noted the investigators, led by Pieter J. van der Veere, MD, Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Easy-to-Use Prototype

On average, it takes 4 years for MCI to progress to dementia. While new disease-modifying drugs targeting amyloid may slow progression, whether this effect is clinically meaningful is debatable, the investigators noted.

Earlier published models predicting cognitive decline either are limited to patients with MCI or haven’t been developed for easy clinical use, they added.

For the single-center study, researchers selected 961 amyloid-positive patients, mean age 65 years, who had at least two longitudinal Mini-Mental State Examinations (MMSEs). Of these, 310 had MCI, and 651 had mild dementia; 48% were women, and over 90% were White.

Researchers used linear mixed modeling to predict MMSE over time. They included age, sex, baseline MMSE, apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 status, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid (Aß) 1-42 and plasma phosphorylated-tau markers, and MRI total brain and hippocampal volume measures in the various models, including the final biomarker prediction models.

At follow-up, investigators found that the yearly decline in MMSEs increased in patients with both MCI and mild dementia. In MCI, the average MMSE declined from 26.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.2-26.7) at baseline to 21.0 (95% CI, 20.2-21.7) after 5 years.

In mild dementia, the average MMSE declined from 22.4 (95% CI, 22.0-22.7) to 7.8 (95% CI, 6.8-8.9) at 5 years.

The predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 20 (indicating mild dementia) for a hypothetical patient with MCI and a baseline MMSE of 28 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 925 pg/mL was 6 years (95% CI, 5.4-6.7 years).

However, with a hypothetical drug treatment that reduces the rate of decline by 30%, the patient would not reach the stage of moderate dementia for 8.6 years.

For a hypothetical patient with mild dementia with a baseline MMSE of 20 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 625 pg/mL, the predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 15 was 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.1-2.5), or 3.3 years if decline is reduced by 30% with drug treatment.

External validation of the prediction models using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a longitudinal cohort of patients not cognitively impaired or with MCI or dementia, showed comparable performance between the model-building approaches.

Researchers have incorporated the models in an easy-to-use calculator as a prototype tool that physicians can use to discuss prognosis, the uncertainty surrounding the predictions, and the impact of intervention strategies with patients.

Future prediction models may be able to predict patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and daily functioning, the researchers noted.

“Until then, there is an important role for clinicians in translating the observed and predicted cognitive functions,” they wrote.

Compared with other studies predicting the MMSE decline using different statistical techniques, these new models showed similar or even better predictive performance while requiring less or similar information, the investigators noted.

The study used MMSE as a measure of cognition, but there may be intraindividual variation in these measures among cognitively normal patients, and those with cognitive decline may score lower if measurements are taken later in the day. Another study limitation was that the models were built for use in memory clinics, so generalizability to the general population could be limited.

The study was supported by Eisai, ZonMW, and Health~Holland Top Sector Life Sciences & Health. See paper for financial disclosures.

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

Using a large, real-world population, researchers have developed models that predict cognitive decline in amyloid-positive patients with either mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia.

The models may help clinicians better answer common questions from their patients about their rate of cognitive decline, noted the investigators, led by Pieter J. van der Veere, MD, Alzheimer Center and Department of Neurology, Amsterdam Neuroscience, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

The findings were published online in Neurology.
 

Easy-to-Use Prototype

On average, it takes 4 years for MCI to progress to dementia. While new disease-modifying drugs targeting amyloid may slow progression, whether this effect is clinically meaningful is debatable, the investigators noted.

Earlier published models predicting cognitive decline either are limited to patients with MCI or haven’t been developed for easy clinical use, they added.

For the single-center study, researchers selected 961 amyloid-positive patients, mean age 65 years, who had at least two longitudinal Mini-Mental State Examinations (MMSEs). Of these, 310 had MCI, and 651 had mild dementia; 48% were women, and over 90% were White.

Researchers used linear mixed modeling to predict MMSE over time. They included age, sex, baseline MMSE, apolipoprotein E epsilon 4 status, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) beta-amyloid (Aß) 1-42 and plasma phosphorylated-tau markers, and MRI total brain and hippocampal volume measures in the various models, including the final biomarker prediction models.

At follow-up, investigators found that the yearly decline in MMSEs increased in patients with both MCI and mild dementia. In MCI, the average MMSE declined from 26.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.2-26.7) at baseline to 21.0 (95% CI, 20.2-21.7) after 5 years.

In mild dementia, the average MMSE declined from 22.4 (95% CI, 22.0-22.7) to 7.8 (95% CI, 6.8-8.9) at 5 years.

The predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 20 (indicating mild dementia) for a hypothetical patient with MCI and a baseline MMSE of 28 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 925 pg/mL was 6 years (95% CI, 5.4-6.7 years).

However, with a hypothetical drug treatment that reduces the rate of decline by 30%, the patient would not reach the stage of moderate dementia for 8.6 years.

For a hypothetical patient with mild dementia with a baseline MMSE of 20 and CSF Aß 1-42 of 625 pg/mL, the predicted mean time to reach an MMSE of 15 was 2.3 years (95% CI, 2.1-2.5), or 3.3 years if decline is reduced by 30% with drug treatment.

External validation of the prediction models using data from the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative, a longitudinal cohort of patients not cognitively impaired or with MCI or dementia, showed comparable performance between the model-building approaches.

Researchers have incorporated the models in an easy-to-use calculator as a prototype tool that physicians can use to discuss prognosis, the uncertainty surrounding the predictions, and the impact of intervention strategies with patients.

Future prediction models may be able to predict patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life and daily functioning, the researchers noted.

“Until then, there is an important role for clinicians in translating the observed and predicted cognitive functions,” they wrote.

Compared with other studies predicting the MMSE decline using different statistical techniques, these new models showed similar or even better predictive performance while requiring less or similar information, the investigators noted.

The study used MMSE as a measure of cognition, but there may be intraindividual variation in these measures among cognitively normal patients, and those with cognitive decline may score lower if measurements are taken later in the day. Another study limitation was that the models were built for use in memory clinics, so generalizability to the general population could be limited.

The study was supported by Eisai, ZonMW, and Health~Holland Top Sector Life Sciences & Health. See paper for financial disclosures.

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

Eat as fast as you can whenever you can.

That was the med student mindset around food, as Catherine Harmon Toomer, MD, discovered during her school years. “Without a good system in place to counter that,” she explains, “unhealthy eating can get out of control, and that’s what happened to me.”

After med school, things got worse for Dr. Toomer. By her second year in practice as a family medicine physician, she’d gained a lot of weight and had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and cardiomyopathy. At 36, she went into congestive heart failure and was told she likely had 5 years to live.

A moment she described as “a huge wake-up call.”

Dr. Toomer is far from alone in her struggles to balance working in medicine and eating healthfully.

“Physicians face unique stresses because of the ubiquity of junk food in the clinical setting, easy use of food as a reward and stress reliever, and lack of time to create better wellness habits while counseling patients to do exactly that,” said John La Puma, MD, FACP, internist and cofounder of ChefMD and founder of Chef Clinic.

There is also the culture of medicine, which Dr. Toomer said looks down on self-care. “Even with break times, patient needs come before our own.” So, you sit down to eat, and there’s an emergency. Your clinic closes for lunch, but the phones still ring, and patients continue to email questions. Charting is also so time-consuming that “everything else gets put on the back burner.”

Sticking to a nutritious diet in this context can feel hopeless. But it isn’t. Really. Here are some doctor-tested, real-life ways you can nourish yourself while getting it all done.
 

Something Is Always Better Than Nothing

Sure, you might not be able to eat a balanced lunch or dinner while at work, conceded Amy Margulies, RD, LDN, owner of The Rebellious RD. But try to focus on the bigger picture and take small steps.

First, make sure you eat something, Ms. Margulies advised. “Skipping meals can lead to overeating later and negatively impact energy levels and concentration.”

Lisa Andrews, MEd, RD, LD, owner of Sound Bites Nutrition, recalled one of her patients, a gastrointestinal surgeon with reactive hypoglycemia and fatigue. “She was experiencing energy crashes mid-afternoon,” she said. It was only after starting to eat every 4-5 hours that her patient felt better.

Of course, this is easier said than done. “When you are running from one patient to the other and trying to keep on time with your schedule, there is very little time for eating and no time at all for cooking or even heating up food,” recalled Hélène Bertrand, MD, author of Low Back Pain: 3 Steps to Relief in 2 Minutes.

But during her 55 years as a family medicine physician, Dr. Bertrand found ways to improve (if not perfect) the situation. She lunched on nuts or seeds during the day or grabbed a 95% cacao chocolate bar — higher in antioxidants and lower in sugar than a candy bar.

If you don’t have time for breakfast, try drinking a complete protein shake while driving to work, Dr. Toomer recommended. “It’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing.” Similarly, if the only way you’ll eat a high-protein, lower-carb snack like hummus is with potato chips, go for it, she said.

Basically, don’t be type A striving for perfection. Take good enough when you can and balance the rest when you have time.
 

Torpedo Temptation

From free treats in the break room to always-present pizza for residents, high-fat, high-sugar, low-nutrient fare is a constant temptation. “I worked with a physician who would bring a balanced lunch to work every day, then find whatever sweet was around for his afternoon treat,” recalled Ms. Margulies.“The cookies, cakes, and donuts were starting to add up — and stopping at one wasn’t working for him.”

What did work was Ms. Margulies’ suggestion to bring a single serving of dark chocolate and fruit to savor during a longer break. “Bringing your favorite treats in appropriate portions can help you stick with your plan throughout the day,” she explained, and you’ll have an easier time resisting what’s in the break room. “When you desire a treat, tell yourself you have what you need and don’t need to indulge in the ‘free food’ just because it’s there. You have power over your choices.”

How about tricking yourself into perceiving cherry tomatoes as treats? That might be unusual, but one of Dr. La Puma’s physician patients did just that, displaying the produce in a candy dish on his office counter. Not only did this strategy help remind him to snack healthfully, it also prompted his patients to ask about eating better, he said.
 

Preparation Is Still Underrated

Many people find meal prepping intimidating. But it doesn’t need to be complicated. For instance, try purchasing precut veggies, cooked chicken breasts, or other healthy convenience options. You can then combine them in packable containers to prep a few meals at a time. For less busy weeks, consider cooking the protein yourself and whipping up basic sauces (like pesto and vinaigrette) to jazz up your meals.

“I worked with a resident who was gaining weight each month,” recalled Ms. Margulies. “She would skip lunch, grab a random snack, then wait until she got home to eat anything she could find.”

Encouraged by Ms. Margulies, she prepared and portioned one or two balanced dinners each week, which she’d later reheat. She also bought fresh and dried fruit and high-protein snacks, keeping single servings in her car to eat on the way home.

Similarly, Jess DeGore, RD, LDN, CDCES, CHWC, a diabetes educator and owner of Dietitian Jess Nutrition, recalled an ob.gyn. client who constantly skipped meals and relied on vending machine snacks. To combat her resulting energy crashes, she followed Ms. DeGore’s advice to prep workday lunches (like quinoa salads) over the weekend and bring fruit and nut snacks to work.
 

Automate as Much as You Can

If healthy is already on hand, you’ll eat healthy, said Ms. Andrews. Build up a snack stash focusing on fiber and protein. Tote a lunch bag with a cooler pack if needed. Some suggestions:

• Oatmeal packets
• Individual Greek yogurt cups or drinkable yogurts
• Protein bars
• Protein shakes
• Fresh fruit
• Fresh veggie sticks
• Nuts, dried chickpeas, or edamame
• Trail mix
• Single servings of hummus, nut butter, or guacamole
• Dried seaweed snacks
• Whole grain crackers
• Hard-boiled eggs
• String cheese
• Peanut butter sandwich
• 95% cacao chocolate bar

Try a Meal Delivery Service

Meal delivery services can be pricey, but potentially worth the expense. By bringing meals or having them sent to your office, you won’t have to find time to go to the cafeteria and stand in line, noted Janese S. Laster, MD, an internal medicine, gastroenterology, obesity medicine, and nutrition physician and founder of Gut Theory Total Digestive Care. Instead, “you’ll have something to warm up and eat while writing notes or in between patients,” she said. Plus, “you won’t have an excuse to skip meals.”

Hydration Yes, Junk Drinks No

The following can be filed in the Doctors-Know-It-But-Don’t-Always-Do-It section: “Hunger can be mistaken for thirst,” said Ms. Margulies. “Staying hydrated will help you better assess whether you’re hungry or thirsty.” Choose water over soda or energy drinks, she added, to hydrate your body without unnecessary extra sugars, sugar substitutes, calories, caffeine, or sodium — all of which can affect how you feel.

Advocate for Your Health

Convincing your institution to make changes might be difficult or even impossible, but consider asking your workplace to implement initiatives like these to boost provider nutrition, suggested Jabe Brown, BHSc (Nat), founder of Melbourne Functional Medicine:

• Establish protected break times when doctors can step away from their duties to eat
• Add more nutritious cafeteria options, like salads, whole grains, and lean proteins
• Overhaul vending machine offerings
• Offer educational workshops on nutrition

Be Tenacious About Good Eating

For Dr. Toomer, that meant taking several years off from work to improve her health. After losing more than 100 pounds, she founded TOTAL Weight Care Institute to help other healthcare professionals follow in her footsteps.

For you, the path toward a healthier diet might be gradual — grabbing a more nutritious snack, spending an extra hour per week on food shopping or prep, remembering a water bottle. Whatever it looks like, make realistic lifestyle tweaks that work for you.

Maybe even try that apple-a-day thing.
 

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

Eat as fast as you can whenever you can.

That was the med student mindset around food, as Catherine Harmon Toomer, MD, discovered during her school years. “Without a good system in place to counter that,” she explains, “unhealthy eating can get out of control, and that’s what happened to me.”

After med school, things got worse for Dr. Toomer. By her second year in practice as a family medicine physician, she’d gained a lot of weight and had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and cardiomyopathy. At 36, she went into congestive heart failure and was told she likely had 5 years to live.

A moment she described as “a huge wake-up call.”

Dr. Toomer is far from alone in her struggles to balance working in medicine and eating healthfully.

“Physicians face unique stresses because of the ubiquity of junk food in the clinical setting, easy use of food as a reward and stress reliever, and lack of time to create better wellness habits while counseling patients to do exactly that,” said John La Puma, MD, FACP, internist and cofounder of ChefMD and founder of Chef Clinic.

There is also the culture of medicine, which Dr. Toomer said looks down on self-care. “Even with break times, patient needs come before our own.” So, you sit down to eat, and there’s an emergency. Your clinic closes for lunch, but the phones still ring, and patients continue to email questions. Charting is also so time-consuming that “everything else gets put on the back burner.”

Sticking to a nutritious diet in this context can feel hopeless. But it isn’t. Really. Here are some doctor-tested, real-life ways you can nourish yourself while getting it all done.
 

Something Is Always Better Than Nothing

Sure, you might not be able to eat a balanced lunch or dinner while at work, conceded Amy Margulies, RD, LDN, owner of The Rebellious RD. But try to focus on the bigger picture and take small steps.

First, make sure you eat something, Ms. Margulies advised. “Skipping meals can lead to overeating later and negatively impact energy levels and concentration.”

Lisa Andrews, MEd, RD, LD, owner of Sound Bites Nutrition, recalled one of her patients, a gastrointestinal surgeon with reactive hypoglycemia and fatigue. “She was experiencing energy crashes mid-afternoon,” she said. It was only after starting to eat every 4-5 hours that her patient felt better.

Of course, this is easier said than done. “When you are running from one patient to the other and trying to keep on time with your schedule, there is very little time for eating and no time at all for cooking or even heating up food,” recalled Hélène Bertrand, MD, author of Low Back Pain: 3 Steps to Relief in 2 Minutes.

But during her 55 years as a family medicine physician, Dr. Bertrand found ways to improve (if not perfect) the situation. She lunched on nuts or seeds during the day or grabbed a 95% cacao chocolate bar — higher in antioxidants and lower in sugar than a candy bar.

If you don’t have time for breakfast, try drinking a complete protein shake while driving to work, Dr. Toomer recommended. “It’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing.” Similarly, if the only way you’ll eat a high-protein, lower-carb snack like hummus is with potato chips, go for it, she said.

Basically, don’t be type A striving for perfection. Take good enough when you can and balance the rest when you have time.
 

Torpedo Temptation

From free treats in the break room to always-present pizza for residents, high-fat, high-sugar, low-nutrient fare is a constant temptation. “I worked with a physician who would bring a balanced lunch to work every day, then find whatever sweet was around for his afternoon treat,” recalled Ms. Margulies.“The cookies, cakes, and donuts were starting to add up — and stopping at one wasn’t working for him.”

What did work was Ms. Margulies’ suggestion to bring a single serving of dark chocolate and fruit to savor during a longer break. “Bringing your favorite treats in appropriate portions can help you stick with your plan throughout the day,” she explained, and you’ll have an easier time resisting what’s in the break room. “When you desire a treat, tell yourself you have what you need and don’t need to indulge in the ‘free food’ just because it’s there. You have power over your choices.”

How about tricking yourself into perceiving cherry tomatoes as treats? That might be unusual, but one of Dr. La Puma’s physician patients did just that, displaying the produce in a candy dish on his office counter. Not only did this strategy help remind him to snack healthfully, it also prompted his patients to ask about eating better, he said.
 

Preparation Is Still Underrated

Many people find meal prepping intimidating. But it doesn’t need to be complicated. For instance, try purchasing precut veggies, cooked chicken breasts, or other healthy convenience options. You can then combine them in packable containers to prep a few meals at a time. For less busy weeks, consider cooking the protein yourself and whipping up basic sauces (like pesto and vinaigrette) to jazz up your meals.

“I worked with a resident who was gaining weight each month,” recalled Ms. Margulies. “She would skip lunch, grab a random snack, then wait until she got home to eat anything she could find.”

Encouraged by Ms. Margulies, she prepared and portioned one or two balanced dinners each week, which she’d later reheat. She also bought fresh and dried fruit and high-protein snacks, keeping single servings in her car to eat on the way home.

Similarly, Jess DeGore, RD, LDN, CDCES, CHWC, a diabetes educator and owner of Dietitian Jess Nutrition, recalled an ob.gyn. client who constantly skipped meals and relied on vending machine snacks. To combat her resulting energy crashes, she followed Ms. DeGore’s advice to prep workday lunches (like quinoa salads) over the weekend and bring fruit and nut snacks to work.
 

Automate as Much as You Can

If healthy is already on hand, you’ll eat healthy, said Ms. Andrews. Build up a snack stash focusing on fiber and protein. Tote a lunch bag with a cooler pack if needed. Some suggestions:

• Oatmeal packets
• Individual Greek yogurt cups or drinkable yogurts
• Protein bars
• Protein shakes
• Fresh fruit
• Fresh veggie sticks
• Nuts, dried chickpeas, or edamame
• Trail mix
• Single servings of hummus, nut butter, or guacamole
• Dried seaweed snacks
• Whole grain crackers
• Hard-boiled eggs
• String cheese
• Peanut butter sandwich
• 95% cacao chocolate bar

Try a Meal Delivery Service

Meal delivery services can be pricey, but potentially worth the expense. By bringing meals or having them sent to your office, you won’t have to find time to go to the cafeteria and stand in line, noted Janese S. Laster, MD, an internal medicine, gastroenterology, obesity medicine, and nutrition physician and founder of Gut Theory Total Digestive Care. Instead, “you’ll have something to warm up and eat while writing notes or in between patients,” she said. Plus, “you won’t have an excuse to skip meals.”

Hydration Yes, Junk Drinks No

The following can be filed in the Doctors-Know-It-But-Don’t-Always-Do-It section: “Hunger can be mistaken for thirst,” said Ms. Margulies. “Staying hydrated will help you better assess whether you’re hungry or thirsty.” Choose water over soda or energy drinks, she added, to hydrate your body without unnecessary extra sugars, sugar substitutes, calories, caffeine, or sodium — all of which can affect how you feel.

Advocate for Your Health

Convincing your institution to make changes might be difficult or even impossible, but consider asking your workplace to implement initiatives like these to boost provider nutrition, suggested Jabe Brown, BHSc (Nat), founder of Melbourne Functional Medicine:

• Establish protected break times when doctors can step away from their duties to eat
• Add more nutritious cafeteria options, like salads, whole grains, and lean proteins
• Overhaul vending machine offerings
• Offer educational workshops on nutrition

Be Tenacious About Good Eating

For Dr. Toomer, that meant taking several years off from work to improve her health. After losing more than 100 pounds, she founded TOTAL Weight Care Institute to help other healthcare professionals follow in her footsteps.

For you, the path toward a healthier diet might be gradual — grabbing a more nutritious snack, spending an extra hour per week on food shopping or prep, remembering a water bottle. Whatever it looks like, make realistic lifestyle tweaks that work for you.

Maybe even try that apple-a-day thing.
 

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

Eat as fast as you can whenever you can.

That was the med student mindset around food, as Catherine Harmon Toomer, MD, discovered during her school years. “Without a good system in place to counter that,” she explains, “unhealthy eating can get out of control, and that’s what happened to me.”

After med school, things got worse for Dr. Toomer. By her second year in practice as a family medicine physician, she’d gained a lot of weight and had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and cardiomyopathy. At 36, she went into congestive heart failure and was told she likely had 5 years to live.

A moment she described as “a huge wake-up call.”

Dr. Toomer is far from alone in her struggles to balance working in medicine and eating healthfully.

“Physicians face unique stresses because of the ubiquity of junk food in the clinical setting, easy use of food as a reward and stress reliever, and lack of time to create better wellness habits while counseling patients to do exactly that,” said John La Puma, MD, FACP, internist and cofounder of ChefMD and founder of Chef Clinic.

There is also the culture of medicine, which Dr. Toomer said looks down on self-care. “Even with break times, patient needs come before our own.” So, you sit down to eat, and there’s an emergency. Your clinic closes for lunch, but the phones still ring, and patients continue to email questions. Charting is also so time-consuming that “everything else gets put on the back burner.”

Sticking to a nutritious diet in this context can feel hopeless. But it isn’t. Really. Here are some doctor-tested, real-life ways you can nourish yourself while getting it all done.
 

Something Is Always Better Than Nothing

Sure, you might not be able to eat a balanced lunch or dinner while at work, conceded Amy Margulies, RD, LDN, owner of The Rebellious RD. But try to focus on the bigger picture and take small steps.

First, make sure you eat something, Ms. Margulies advised. “Skipping meals can lead to overeating later and negatively impact energy levels and concentration.”

Lisa Andrews, MEd, RD, LD, owner of Sound Bites Nutrition, recalled one of her patients, a gastrointestinal surgeon with reactive hypoglycemia and fatigue. “She was experiencing energy crashes mid-afternoon,” she said. It was only after starting to eat every 4-5 hours that her patient felt better.

Of course, this is easier said than done. “When you are running from one patient to the other and trying to keep on time with your schedule, there is very little time for eating and no time at all for cooking or even heating up food,” recalled Hélène Bertrand, MD, author of Low Back Pain: 3 Steps to Relief in 2 Minutes.

But during her 55 years as a family medicine physician, Dr. Bertrand found ways to improve (if not perfect) the situation. She lunched on nuts or seeds during the day or grabbed a 95% cacao chocolate bar — higher in antioxidants and lower in sugar than a candy bar.

If you don’t have time for breakfast, try drinking a complete protein shake while driving to work, Dr. Toomer recommended. “It’s not ideal, but it’s better than nothing.” Similarly, if the only way you’ll eat a high-protein, lower-carb snack like hummus is with potato chips, go for it, she said.

Basically, don’t be type A striving for perfection. Take good enough when you can and balance the rest when you have time.
 

Torpedo Temptation

From free treats in the break room to always-present pizza for residents, high-fat, high-sugar, low-nutrient fare is a constant temptation. “I worked with a physician who would bring a balanced lunch to work every day, then find whatever sweet was around for his afternoon treat,” recalled Ms. Margulies.“The cookies, cakes, and donuts were starting to add up — and stopping at one wasn’t working for him.”

What did work was Ms. Margulies’ suggestion to bring a single serving of dark chocolate and fruit to savor during a longer break. “Bringing your favorite treats in appropriate portions can help you stick with your plan throughout the day,” she explained, and you’ll have an easier time resisting what’s in the break room. “When you desire a treat, tell yourself you have what you need and don’t need to indulge in the ‘free food’ just because it’s there. You have power over your choices.”

How about tricking yourself into perceiving cherry tomatoes as treats? That might be unusual, but one of Dr. La Puma’s physician patients did just that, displaying the produce in a candy dish on his office counter. Not only did this strategy help remind him to snack healthfully, it also prompted his patients to ask about eating better, he said.
 

Preparation Is Still Underrated

Many people find meal prepping intimidating. But it doesn’t need to be complicated. For instance, try purchasing precut veggies, cooked chicken breasts, or other healthy convenience options. You can then combine them in packable containers to prep a few meals at a time. For less busy weeks, consider cooking the protein yourself and whipping up basic sauces (like pesto and vinaigrette) to jazz up your meals.

“I worked with a resident who was gaining weight each month,” recalled Ms. Margulies. “She would skip lunch, grab a random snack, then wait until she got home to eat anything she could find.”

Encouraged by Ms. Margulies, she prepared and portioned one or two balanced dinners each week, which she’d later reheat. She also bought fresh and dried fruit and high-protein snacks, keeping single servings in her car to eat on the way home.

Similarly, Jess DeGore, RD, LDN, CDCES, CHWC, a diabetes educator and owner of Dietitian Jess Nutrition, recalled an ob.gyn. client who constantly skipped meals and relied on vending machine snacks. To combat her resulting energy crashes, she followed Ms. DeGore’s advice to prep workday lunches (like quinoa salads) over the weekend and bring fruit and nut snacks to work.
 

Automate as Much as You Can

If healthy is already on hand, you’ll eat healthy, said Ms. Andrews. Build up a snack stash focusing on fiber and protein. Tote a lunch bag with a cooler pack if needed. Some suggestions:

• Oatmeal packets
• Individual Greek yogurt cups or drinkable yogurts
• Protein bars
• Protein shakes
• Fresh fruit
• Fresh veggie sticks
• Nuts, dried chickpeas, or edamame
• Trail mix
• Single servings of hummus, nut butter, or guacamole
• Dried seaweed snacks
• Whole grain crackers
• Hard-boiled eggs
• String cheese
• Peanut butter sandwich
• 95% cacao chocolate bar

Try a Meal Delivery Service

Meal delivery services can be pricey, but potentially worth the expense. By bringing meals or having them sent to your office, you won’t have to find time to go to the cafeteria and stand in line, noted Janese S. Laster, MD, an internal medicine, gastroenterology, obesity medicine, and nutrition physician and founder of Gut Theory Total Digestive Care. Instead, “you’ll have something to warm up and eat while writing notes or in between patients,” she said. Plus, “you won’t have an excuse to skip meals.”

Hydration Yes, Junk Drinks No

The following can be filed in the Doctors-Know-It-But-Don’t-Always-Do-It section: “Hunger can be mistaken for thirst,” said Ms. Margulies. “Staying hydrated will help you better assess whether you’re hungry or thirsty.” Choose water over soda or energy drinks, she added, to hydrate your body without unnecessary extra sugars, sugar substitutes, calories, caffeine, or sodium — all of which can affect how you feel.

Advocate for Your Health

Convincing your institution to make changes might be difficult or even impossible, but consider asking your workplace to implement initiatives like these to boost provider nutrition, suggested Jabe Brown, BHSc (Nat), founder of Melbourne Functional Medicine:

• Establish protected break times when doctors can step away from their duties to eat
• Add more nutritious cafeteria options, like salads, whole grains, and lean proteins
• Overhaul vending machine offerings
• Offer educational workshops on nutrition

Be Tenacious About Good Eating

For Dr. Toomer, that meant taking several years off from work to improve her health. After losing more than 100 pounds, she founded TOTAL Weight Care Institute to help other healthcare professionals follow in her footsteps.

For you, the path toward a healthier diet might be gradual — grabbing a more nutritious snack, spending an extra hour per week on food shopping or prep, remembering a water bottle. Whatever it looks like, make realistic lifestyle tweaks that work for you.

Maybe even try that apple-a-day thing.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Smartphone apps, including those using cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness techniques, showed comparable efficacy in reducing depression, anxiety, and suicidality in patients with psychiatric conditions waiting for appointments with psychiatrists or therapists.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants were adults aged 18 years or older seeking outpatient psychiatric services from several mental and behavioral health clinics within the University of Michigan Health System.
• Eligible participants were those with either a scheduled future mental health appointment or an initial appointment completed within the past 60 days and daily access to a smartphone.
• After completing a baseline survey that gathered data on participants’ depression, anxiety, and suicidality scores, 2080 participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups:
• Enhanced personalized feedback (EPF) only (n = 690)
• SilverCloud only (SilverCloud, a mobile application designed to deliver CBT strategies; n = 345)
• SilverCloud plus EPF (n = 346)
• Headspace only (Headspace, a mobile application designed to train users in mindfulness practices; n = 349)
• Headspace plus EPF (n = 349)

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression score was 12.7 (6.4% patients). Overall, depression scores significantly decreased by 2.5 points from baseline to the 6-week follow-up for all five arms, with marginal mean differences in mean change ranging from −2.1 to −2.9 (P < .001).
• The magnitude of change was not significantly different across the five arms on most measures (P = .31). Additionally, the groups did not differ in decrease of anxiety or substance use symptoms.
• The Headspace arms reported significantly greater improvements on a suicidality measure subscale than the SilverCloud arms (mean difference in mean change, 0.63; P = .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“Having this type of option, especially for people who are motivated enough to seek an appointment and wait for it, could be very valuable when providers have long wait lists,” lead author Adam Horwitz, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

“These individuals want to be doing something about their mental health but don’t yet have access, so this suggests that providing them with some sort of digital option when their motivation is already high, and they are ready to do something, could begin to make a difference.”
 

SOURCE:

Dr. Horwitz led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There may have been aspects of formal or in-person care that contributed to the improvement in symptoms across groups and diluted the ability to identify differences between applications in effects on symptom reduction.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from Precision Health, the Eisenberg Family Depression Center, and the National Institute of Mental Health. 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:

Smartphone apps, including those using cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness techniques, showed comparable efficacy in reducing depression, anxiety, and suicidality in patients with psychiatric conditions waiting for appointments with psychiatrists or therapists.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants were adults aged 18 years or older seeking outpatient psychiatric services from several mental and behavioral health clinics within the University of Michigan Health System.
• Eligible participants were those with either a scheduled future mental health appointment or an initial appointment completed within the past 60 days and daily access to a smartphone.
• After completing a baseline survey that gathered data on participants’ depression, anxiety, and suicidality scores, 2080 participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups:
• Enhanced personalized feedback (EPF) only (n = 690)
• SilverCloud only (SilverCloud, a mobile application designed to deliver CBT strategies; n = 345)
• SilverCloud plus EPF (n = 346)
• Headspace only (Headspace, a mobile application designed to train users in mindfulness practices; n = 349)
• Headspace plus EPF (n = 349)

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression score was 12.7 (6.4% patients). Overall, depression scores significantly decreased by 2.5 points from baseline to the 6-week follow-up for all five arms, with marginal mean differences in mean change ranging from −2.1 to −2.9 (P < .001).
• The magnitude of change was not significantly different across the five arms on most measures (P = .31). Additionally, the groups did not differ in decrease of anxiety or substance use symptoms.
• The Headspace arms reported significantly greater improvements on a suicidality measure subscale than the SilverCloud arms (mean difference in mean change, 0.63; P = .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“Having this type of option, especially for people who are motivated enough to seek an appointment and wait for it, could be very valuable when providers have long wait lists,” lead author Adam Horwitz, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

“These individuals want to be doing something about their mental health but don’t yet have access, so this suggests that providing them with some sort of digital option when their motivation is already high, and they are ready to do something, could begin to make a difference.”
 

SOURCE:

Dr. Horwitz led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There may have been aspects of formal or in-person care that contributed to the improvement in symptoms across groups and diluted the ability to identify differences between applications in effects on symptom reduction.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from Precision Health, the Eisenberg Family Depression Center, and the National Institute of Mental Health. 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:

Smartphone apps, including those using cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness techniques, showed comparable efficacy in reducing depression, anxiety, and suicidality in patients with psychiatric conditions waiting for appointments with psychiatrists or therapists.

METHODOLOGY:

• Participants were adults aged 18 years or older seeking outpatient psychiatric services from several mental and behavioral health clinics within the University of Michigan Health System.
• Eligible participants were those with either a scheduled future mental health appointment or an initial appointment completed within the past 60 days and daily access to a smartphone.
• After completing a baseline survey that gathered data on participants’ depression, anxiety, and suicidality scores, 2080 participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups:
• Enhanced personalized feedback (EPF) only (n = 690)
• SilverCloud only (SilverCloud, a mobile application designed to deliver CBT strategies; n = 345)
• SilverCloud plus EPF (n = 346)
• Headspace only (Headspace, a mobile application designed to train users in mindfulness practices; n = 349)
• Headspace plus EPF (n = 349)

TAKEAWAY:

• The mean baseline Patient Health Questionnaire-9 depression score was 12.7 (6.4% patients). Overall, depression scores significantly decreased by 2.5 points from baseline to the 6-week follow-up for all five arms, with marginal mean differences in mean change ranging from −2.1 to −2.9 (P < .001).
• The magnitude of change was not significantly different across the five arms on most measures (P = .31). Additionally, the groups did not differ in decrease of anxiety or substance use symptoms.
• The Headspace arms reported significantly greater improvements on a suicidality measure subscale than the SilverCloud arms (mean difference in mean change, 0.63; P = .004).

IN PRACTICE:

“Having this type of option, especially for people who are motivated enough to seek an appointment and wait for it, could be very valuable when providers have long wait lists,” lead author Adam Horwitz, PhD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in a press release.

“These individuals want to be doing something about their mental health but don’t yet have access, so this suggests that providing them with some sort of digital option when their motivation is already high, and they are ready to do something, could begin to make a difference.”
 

SOURCE:

Dr. Horwitz led the study, which was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

There may have been aspects of formal or in-person care that contributed to the improvement in symptoms across groups and diluted the ability to identify differences between applications in effects on symptom reduction.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by a grant from Precision Health, the Eisenberg Family Depression Center, and the National Institute of Mental Health. 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.

Lauren Opladen remembers the agonizing wait all too well.

At age 17, struggling with paralyzing depression after losing her brother to suicide and her father to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, her teacher suggested she seek help.

So, she did. But she had to spend 3 days inside an emergency department at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, where the Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program (CPEP) provides immediate care for youth and adults experiencing psychiatric emergencies.

“We were sleeping on a couch just waiting for all these services, when that’s precious time wasted,” Ms. Opladen said.

Ms. Opladen made it through that dark period, and 5 years later, she is a registered nurse at the same hospital. Every day she walks past a new facility she wishes had existed during her troubled teenage years: An urgent care center for children and adolescents experiencing mental health crises.

Brighter Days Pediatric Mental Health Urgent Care Center, Rochester, New York, opened in July as a walk-in clinic offering rapid assessment, crisis intervention, and short-term stabilization, provides referrals to counseling or psychiatric care. Children and adolescents at immediate risk of harming themselves or others, or who need inpatient care, are sent to CPEP or another emergency department in the area.

Similar walk-in facilities linking youth to longer-term services are popping up in nearly a dozen states, including New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. The emerging model of care may offer a crucial bridge between traditional outpatient services and emergency room (ER) visits for some young people experiencing mental health crises.

“We’ve seen a significant increase in the number of children and adolescents presenting to emergency departments with mental health concerns,” said Michael A. Scharf, MD, chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center, who oversees operations at Brighter Days. “These urgent care centers provide a more appropriate setting for many of these cases, offering specialized care without the often overwhelming environment of an ER.”

The urgency of addressing youth behavioral health has become increasingly apparent. The most recent data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that over a 6-month period in 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to the emergency department for mental health problems spiked 24% among children aged 5-11 years and 31% among 12-17-year-olds compared with the same period in 2019. Between March 2021 and February 2022, such emergency visits rose by 22% for teen girls, while falling by 15% for boys ages 5-12 years and 9% for older boys. Most visits occur during the school year.

But staffing shortages and limited physical space are taxing the capacity of the healthcare system to screen, diagnose, and manage these patients, according to a 2023 report published in Pediatrics.
 

Urgent Care: A Misnomer?

Some in the mental health community said the label “urgent” in these centers’ titles is misleading. Brighter Days and similar facilities do not conduct involuntary holds, administer medication, or handle serious cases like psychotic episodes.

David Mathison, MD, senior vice president of clinic operations at PM Pediatrics, a chain of pediatric urgent care clinics in Maryland, said patients and their families may mistakenly believe the centers will address mental health problems quickly.

“It’s really not urgent behavioral health. It’s really just another access point to get behavioral health,” Dr. Mathison said. “Crises in pediatrics are so much more complex” than physical injuries or acute infections, which are the bread and butter of urgent care centers.

“An urgent care center almost implies you’re going to come in for a solution to a simple problem, and it’s going to be done relatively quickly on demand, and it’s just not what the behavioral health centers do,” he said.

Dr. Mathison, who also serves on the executive committee for the section on urgent care at the American Academy of Pediatrics, likened the centers to in-person versions of crisis center hotlines, which offer virtual counseling and talk therapy and may refer individuals to specialists who can provide clinical care over the long term.

Instead, Brighter Days and other centers provide crisis de-escalation for individuals experiencing an exacerbation of a diagnosed mental illness, such a manic episode from bipolar disorder.

“Most places aren’t just going to change their therapy without either contacting their psychiatrist or having psychiatrists on staff,” Dr. Mathison said.

Other challenges at Brighter Days and similar centers include staffing with appropriately trained mental health professionals, given the nationwide shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists, Dr. Scharf said.

The number of child and adolescent psychiatrists per 100,000 children varies significantly across states. Nationally, the average stands at 14 psychiatrists per 100,000 children, but ranges from as low as 4 to 65, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

For now, Dr. Scharf said, patients who visit Brighter Days are billed as if they are having a routine pediatric office visit as opposed to a pricier trip to the emergency department. And the center accepts all individuals, regardless of their insurance status.

Ms. Opladen said the urgent care center represents a significant improvement over her experience at the emergency department’s psychiatric triage.

“I saw how awful it was and just the environment,” she said. “The first thing I thought was, what do I need to do to get out of here?”

She said the pediatric mental health urgent care centers are “the complete opposite.” Like Brighter Days, these centers are designed to look more like a pediatrician’s office, with bright welcoming colors and games and toys.

“It’s separated from everything else. There’s a welcome, relaxed space,” she said. “The welcoming feel is just a whole different environment, and that’s really how it should be.”
 

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

Lauren Opladen remembers the agonizing wait all too well.

At age 17, struggling with paralyzing depression after losing her brother to suicide and her father to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, her teacher suggested she seek help.

So, she did. But she had to spend 3 days inside an emergency department at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, where the Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program (CPEP) provides immediate care for youth and adults experiencing psychiatric emergencies.

“We were sleeping on a couch just waiting for all these services, when that’s precious time wasted,” Ms. Opladen said.

Ms. Opladen made it through that dark period, and 5 years later, she is a registered nurse at the same hospital. Every day she walks past a new facility she wishes had existed during her troubled teenage years: An urgent care center for children and adolescents experiencing mental health crises.

Brighter Days Pediatric Mental Health Urgent Care Center, Rochester, New York, opened in July as a walk-in clinic offering rapid assessment, crisis intervention, and short-term stabilization, provides referrals to counseling or psychiatric care. Children and adolescents at immediate risk of harming themselves or others, or who need inpatient care, are sent to CPEP or another emergency department in the area.

Similar walk-in facilities linking youth to longer-term services are popping up in nearly a dozen states, including New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. The emerging model of care may offer a crucial bridge between traditional outpatient services and emergency room (ER) visits for some young people experiencing mental health crises.

“We’ve seen a significant increase in the number of children and adolescents presenting to emergency departments with mental health concerns,” said Michael A. Scharf, MD, chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center, who oversees operations at Brighter Days. “These urgent care centers provide a more appropriate setting for many of these cases, offering specialized care without the often overwhelming environment of an ER.”

The urgency of addressing youth behavioral health has become increasingly apparent. The most recent data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that over a 6-month period in 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to the emergency department for mental health problems spiked 24% among children aged 5-11 years and 31% among 12-17-year-olds compared with the same period in 2019. Between March 2021 and February 2022, such emergency visits rose by 22% for teen girls, while falling by 15% for boys ages 5-12 years and 9% for older boys. Most visits occur during the school year.

But staffing shortages and limited physical space are taxing the capacity of the healthcare system to screen, diagnose, and manage these patients, according to a 2023 report published in Pediatrics.
 

Urgent Care: A Misnomer?

Some in the mental health community said the label “urgent” in these centers’ titles is misleading. Brighter Days and similar facilities do not conduct involuntary holds, administer medication, or handle serious cases like psychotic episodes.

David Mathison, MD, senior vice president of clinic operations at PM Pediatrics, a chain of pediatric urgent care clinics in Maryland, said patients and their families may mistakenly believe the centers will address mental health problems quickly.

“It’s really not urgent behavioral health. It’s really just another access point to get behavioral health,” Dr. Mathison said. “Crises in pediatrics are so much more complex” than physical injuries or acute infections, which are the bread and butter of urgent care centers.

“An urgent care center almost implies you’re going to come in for a solution to a simple problem, and it’s going to be done relatively quickly on demand, and it’s just not what the behavioral health centers do,” he said.

Dr. Mathison, who also serves on the executive committee for the section on urgent care at the American Academy of Pediatrics, likened the centers to in-person versions of crisis center hotlines, which offer virtual counseling and talk therapy and may refer individuals to specialists who can provide clinical care over the long term.

Instead, Brighter Days and other centers provide crisis de-escalation for individuals experiencing an exacerbation of a diagnosed mental illness, such a manic episode from bipolar disorder.

“Most places aren’t just going to change their therapy without either contacting their psychiatrist or having psychiatrists on staff,” Dr. Mathison said.

Other challenges at Brighter Days and similar centers include staffing with appropriately trained mental health professionals, given the nationwide shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists, Dr. Scharf said.

The number of child and adolescent psychiatrists per 100,000 children varies significantly across states. Nationally, the average stands at 14 psychiatrists per 100,000 children, but ranges from as low as 4 to 65, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

For now, Dr. Scharf said, patients who visit Brighter Days are billed as if they are having a routine pediatric office visit as opposed to a pricier trip to the emergency department. And the center accepts all individuals, regardless of their insurance status.

Ms. Opladen said the urgent care center represents a significant improvement over her experience at the emergency department’s psychiatric triage.

“I saw how awful it was and just the environment,” she said. “The first thing I thought was, what do I need to do to get out of here?”

She said the pediatric mental health urgent care centers are “the complete opposite.” Like Brighter Days, these centers are designed to look more like a pediatrician’s office, with bright welcoming colors and games and toys.

“It’s separated from everything else. There’s a welcome, relaxed space,” she said. “The welcoming feel is just a whole different environment, and that’s really how it should be.”
 

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

Lauren Opladen remembers the agonizing wait all too well.

At age 17, struggling with paralyzing depression after losing her brother to suicide and her father to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, her teacher suggested she seek help.

So, she did. But she had to spend 3 days inside an emergency department at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York, where the Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program (CPEP) provides immediate care for youth and adults experiencing psychiatric emergencies.

“We were sleeping on a couch just waiting for all these services, when that’s precious time wasted,” Ms. Opladen said.

Ms. Opladen made it through that dark period, and 5 years later, she is a registered nurse at the same hospital. Every day she walks past a new facility she wishes had existed during her troubled teenage years: An urgent care center for children and adolescents experiencing mental health crises.

Brighter Days Pediatric Mental Health Urgent Care Center, Rochester, New York, opened in July as a walk-in clinic offering rapid assessment, crisis intervention, and short-term stabilization, provides referrals to counseling or psychiatric care. Children and adolescents at immediate risk of harming themselves or others, or who need inpatient care, are sent to CPEP or another emergency department in the area.

Similar walk-in facilities linking youth to longer-term services are popping up in nearly a dozen states, including New York, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. The emerging model of care may offer a crucial bridge between traditional outpatient services and emergency room (ER) visits for some young people experiencing mental health crises.

“We’ve seen a significant increase in the number of children and adolescents presenting to emergency departments with mental health concerns,” said Michael A. Scharf, MD, chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Rochester Medical Center, who oversees operations at Brighter Days. “These urgent care centers provide a more appropriate setting for many of these cases, offering specialized care without the often overwhelming environment of an ER.”

The urgency of addressing youth behavioral health has become increasingly apparent. The most recent data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showed that over a 6-month period in 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, visits to the emergency department for mental health problems spiked 24% among children aged 5-11 years and 31% among 12-17-year-olds compared with the same period in 2019. Between March 2021 and February 2022, such emergency visits rose by 22% for teen girls, while falling by 15% for boys ages 5-12 years and 9% for older boys. Most visits occur during the school year.

But staffing shortages and limited physical space are taxing the capacity of the healthcare system to screen, diagnose, and manage these patients, according to a 2023 report published in Pediatrics.
 

Urgent Care: A Misnomer?

Some in the mental health community said the label “urgent” in these centers’ titles is misleading. Brighter Days and similar facilities do not conduct involuntary holds, administer medication, or handle serious cases like psychotic episodes.

David Mathison, MD, senior vice president of clinic operations at PM Pediatrics, a chain of pediatric urgent care clinics in Maryland, said patients and their families may mistakenly believe the centers will address mental health problems quickly.

“It’s really not urgent behavioral health. It’s really just another access point to get behavioral health,” Dr. Mathison said. “Crises in pediatrics are so much more complex” than physical injuries or acute infections, which are the bread and butter of urgent care centers.

“An urgent care center almost implies you’re going to come in for a solution to a simple problem, and it’s going to be done relatively quickly on demand, and it’s just not what the behavioral health centers do,” he said.

Dr. Mathison, who also serves on the executive committee for the section on urgent care at the American Academy of Pediatrics, likened the centers to in-person versions of crisis center hotlines, which offer virtual counseling and talk therapy and may refer individuals to specialists who can provide clinical care over the long term.

Instead, Brighter Days and other centers provide crisis de-escalation for individuals experiencing an exacerbation of a diagnosed mental illness, such a manic episode from bipolar disorder.

“Most places aren’t just going to change their therapy without either contacting their psychiatrist or having psychiatrists on staff,” Dr. Mathison said.

Other challenges at Brighter Days and similar centers include staffing with appropriately trained mental health professionals, given the nationwide shortage of child and adolescent psychiatrists, Dr. Scharf said.

The number of child and adolescent psychiatrists per 100,000 children varies significantly across states. Nationally, the average stands at 14 psychiatrists per 100,000 children, but ranges from as low as 4 to 65, according to the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.

For now, Dr. Scharf said, patients who visit Brighter Days are billed as if they are having a routine pediatric office visit as opposed to a pricier trip to the emergency department. And the center accepts all individuals, regardless of their insurance status.

Ms. Opladen said the urgent care center represents a significant improvement over her experience at the emergency department’s psychiatric triage.

“I saw how awful it was and just the environment,” she said. “The first thing I thought was, what do I need to do to get out of here?”

She said the pediatric mental health urgent care centers are “the complete opposite.” Like Brighter Days, these centers are designed to look more like a pediatrician’s office, with bright welcoming colors and games and toys.

“It’s separated from everything else. There’s a welcome, relaxed space,” she said. “The welcoming feel is just a whole different environment, and that’s really how it should be.”
 

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

Receipt of a newer recombinant version of a shingles vaccine is associated with a significant delay in dementia diagnosis in older adults, a new study suggests.

The study builds on previous observations of a reduction in dementia risk with the older live shingles vaccine and reports a delay in dementia diagnosis of 164 days with the newer recombinant version, compared with the live vaccine. 

“Given the prevalence of dementia, a delay of 164 days in diagnosis would not be a trivial effect at the public health level. It’s a big enough effect that if there is a causality it feels meaningful,” said senior author Paul Harrison, DM, FRCPsych, professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. 

But Dr. Harrison stressed that the study had not proven that the shingles vaccine reduced dementia risk. 

“The design of the study allows us to do away with many of the confounding effects we usually see in observational studies, but this is still an observational study, and as such it cannot prove a definite causal effect,” he said. 

The study was published online on July 25 in Nature Medicine.
 

‘Natural Experiment’

Given the risk for deleterious consequences of shingles, vaccination is now recommended for older adults in many countries. The previously used live shingles vaccine (Zostavax) is being replaced in most countries with the new recombinant shingles vaccine (Shingrix), which is more effective at preventing shingles infection. 

The current study made use of a “natural experiment” in the United States, which switched over from use of the live vaccine to the recombinant vaccine in October 2017. 

Researchers used electronic heath records to compare the incidence of a dementia diagnosis in individuals who received the live shingles vaccine prior to October 2017 with those who received the recombinant version after the United States made the switch. 

They also used propensity score matching to further control for confounding factors, comparing 103,837 individuals who received a first dose of the live shingles vaccine between October 2014 and September 2017 with the same number of matched people who received the recombinant vaccine between November 2017 and October 2020. 

Results showed that within the 6 years after vaccination, the recombinant vaccine was associated with a delay in the diagnosis of dementia, compared with the live vaccine. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine was associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating to 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. 

As an additional control, the researchers also found significantly lower risks for dementia in individuals receiving the new recombinant shingles vaccine vs two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccines, with increases in diagnosis-free time of 14%-27%. 

Reduced Risk or Delayed Diagnosis?

Speaking at a Science Media Centre press conference on the study, lead author Maxime Taquet, PhD, FRCPsych, clinical lecturer in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, noted that the total number of dementia cases were similar in the two shingles vaccine groups by the end of the 6-year follow-up period but there was a difference in the time at which they received a diagnosis of dementia.

“The study suggests that rather than actually reducing dementia risk, the recombinant vaccine delays the onset of dementia compared to the live vaccine in patients who go on to develop the condition,” he explained. 

But when comparing the recombinant vaccine with the influenza and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccines there was a clear reduction in dementia risk itself, Dr. Taquet reported. 

“It might well be that the live vaccine has a potential effect on the risk of dementia itself and therefore the recombinant vaccine only shows a delay in dementia compared to the live vaccine, but both of them might decrease the overall risk of dementia,” he suggested. 

But the researchers cautioned that this study could not prove causality. 

“While the two groups were very carefully matched in terms of factors that might influence the development of dementia, we still have to be cautious before assuming that the vaccine is indeed causally reducing the risk of onset of dementia,” Dr. Harrison warned. 

The researchers say the results would need to be confirmed in a randomized trial, which may have to be conducted in a slightly younger age group, as currently shingles vaccine is recommended for all older individuals in the United Kingdom. 

Vaccine recommendations vary from country to country, Dr. Harrison added. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the recombinant shingles vaccine for all adults aged 50 years or older. 

In the meantime, it would be interesting to see whether further observational studies in other countries find similar results as this US study, Dr. Harrison said.  
 

Mechanism Uncertain

Speculating on a possible mechanism behind the findings, Dr. Harrison suggested two plausible explanations.

“First, it is thought that the herpes virus could be one of many factors that could promote dementia, so a vaccine that stops reactivation of this virus might therefore be delaying that process,” he noted. 

The other possibility is that adjuvants included in the recombinant vaccine to stimulate the immune system might have played a role. 

“We don’t have any data on the mechanism, and thus study did not address that, so further studies are needed to look into this,” Dr. Harrison said. 
 

Stronger Effect in Women

Another intriguing finding is that the association with the recombinant vaccine and delayed dementia diagnosis seemed to be stronger in women vs men. 

In the original study of the live shingles vaccine, a protective effect against dementia was shown only in women. 

In the current study, the delay in dementia diagnosis was seen in both sexes but was stronger in women, showing a 22% increased time without dementia in women versus a 13% increased time in men with the recombinant versus the live vaccine. 

As expected, the recombinant vaccine was associated with a lower risk for shingles disease vs the live vaccine (2.5% versus 3.5%), but women did not have a better response than men did in this respect. 

“The better protection against shingles with the recombinant vaccine was similar in men and women, an observation that might be one reason to question the possible mechanism behind the dementia effect being better suppression of the herpes zoster virus by the recombinant vaccine,” Dr. Harrison commented. 

Though these findings are not likely to lead to any immediate changes in policy regarding the shingles vaccine, Dr. Harrison said it would be interesting to see whether uptake of the vaccine increased after this study. 

He estimated that, currently in the United Kingdom, about 60% of older adults choose to have the shingles vaccine. A 2020 study in the United States found that only about one-third of US adults over 60 had received the vaccine. 

“It will be interesting to see if that figure increases after these data are publicized, but I am not recommending that people have the vaccine specifically to lower their risk of dementia because of the caveats about the study that we have discussed,” he commented. 
 

Outside Experts Positive 

Outside experts, providing comment to the Science Media Centre, welcomed the new research. 

“ The study is very well-conducted and adds to previous data indicating that vaccination against shingles is associated with lower dementia risk. More research is needed in future to determine why this vaccine is associated with lower dementia risk,” said Tara Spires-Jones, FMedSci, president of the British Neuroscience Association. 

The high number of patients in the study and the adjustments for potential confounders are also strong points, noted Andrew Doig, PhD, professor of biochemistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.

“This is a significant result, comparable in effectiveness to the recent antibody drugs for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Doig said. “Administering the recombinant shingles vaccine could well be a simple and cheap way to lower the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Dr. Doig noted that a link between herpes zoster infection and the onset of dementia has been suspected for some time, and a trial of the antiviral drug valacyclovir against Alzheimer’s disease is currently underway.

In regard to the shingles vaccine, he said a placebo-controlled trial would be needed to prove causality. 

“We also need to see how many years the effect might last and whether we should vaccinate people at a younger age. We know that the path to Alzheimer’s can start decades before any symptoms are apparent, so the vaccine might be even more effective if given to people in their 40s or 50s,” he said.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Taquet reported no disclosures. Dr. Doig is a founder, director, and consultant for PharmaKure, which works on Alzheimer’s drugs and diagnostics. Other commentators declared no disclosures.

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

Receipt of a newer recombinant version of a shingles vaccine is associated with a significant delay in dementia diagnosis in older adults, a new study suggests.

The study builds on previous observations of a reduction in dementia risk with the older live shingles vaccine and reports a delay in dementia diagnosis of 164 days with the newer recombinant version, compared with the live vaccine. 

“Given the prevalence of dementia, a delay of 164 days in diagnosis would not be a trivial effect at the public health level. It’s a big enough effect that if there is a causality it feels meaningful,” said senior author Paul Harrison, DM, FRCPsych, professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. 

But Dr. Harrison stressed that the study had not proven that the shingles vaccine reduced dementia risk. 

“The design of the study allows us to do away with many of the confounding effects we usually see in observational studies, but this is still an observational study, and as such it cannot prove a definite causal effect,” he said. 

The study was published online on July 25 in Nature Medicine.
 

‘Natural Experiment’

Given the risk for deleterious consequences of shingles, vaccination is now recommended for older adults in many countries. The previously used live shingles vaccine (Zostavax) is being replaced in most countries with the new recombinant shingles vaccine (Shingrix), which is more effective at preventing shingles infection. 

The current study made use of a “natural experiment” in the United States, which switched over from use of the live vaccine to the recombinant vaccine in October 2017. 

Researchers used electronic heath records to compare the incidence of a dementia diagnosis in individuals who received the live shingles vaccine prior to October 2017 with those who received the recombinant version after the United States made the switch. 

They also used propensity score matching to further control for confounding factors, comparing 103,837 individuals who received a first dose of the live shingles vaccine between October 2014 and September 2017 with the same number of matched people who received the recombinant vaccine between November 2017 and October 2020. 

Results showed that within the 6 years after vaccination, the recombinant vaccine was associated with a delay in the diagnosis of dementia, compared with the live vaccine. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine was associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating to 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. 

As an additional control, the researchers also found significantly lower risks for dementia in individuals receiving the new recombinant shingles vaccine vs two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccines, with increases in diagnosis-free time of 14%-27%. 

Reduced Risk or Delayed Diagnosis?

Speaking at a Science Media Centre press conference on the study, lead author Maxime Taquet, PhD, FRCPsych, clinical lecturer in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, noted that the total number of dementia cases were similar in the two shingles vaccine groups by the end of the 6-year follow-up period but there was a difference in the time at which they received a diagnosis of dementia.

“The study suggests that rather than actually reducing dementia risk, the recombinant vaccine delays the onset of dementia compared to the live vaccine in patients who go on to develop the condition,” he explained. 

But when comparing the recombinant vaccine with the influenza and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccines there was a clear reduction in dementia risk itself, Dr. Taquet reported. 

“It might well be that the live vaccine has a potential effect on the risk of dementia itself and therefore the recombinant vaccine only shows a delay in dementia compared to the live vaccine, but both of them might decrease the overall risk of dementia,” he suggested. 

But the researchers cautioned that this study could not prove causality. 

“While the two groups were very carefully matched in terms of factors that might influence the development of dementia, we still have to be cautious before assuming that the vaccine is indeed causally reducing the risk of onset of dementia,” Dr. Harrison warned. 

The researchers say the results would need to be confirmed in a randomized trial, which may have to be conducted in a slightly younger age group, as currently shingles vaccine is recommended for all older individuals in the United Kingdom. 

Vaccine recommendations vary from country to country, Dr. Harrison added. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the recombinant shingles vaccine for all adults aged 50 years or older. 

In the meantime, it would be interesting to see whether further observational studies in other countries find similar results as this US study, Dr. Harrison said.  
 

Mechanism Uncertain

Speculating on a possible mechanism behind the findings, Dr. Harrison suggested two plausible explanations.

“First, it is thought that the herpes virus could be one of many factors that could promote dementia, so a vaccine that stops reactivation of this virus might therefore be delaying that process,” he noted. 

The other possibility is that adjuvants included in the recombinant vaccine to stimulate the immune system might have played a role. 

“We don’t have any data on the mechanism, and thus study did not address that, so further studies are needed to look into this,” Dr. Harrison said. 
 

Stronger Effect in Women

Another intriguing finding is that the association with the recombinant vaccine and delayed dementia diagnosis seemed to be stronger in women vs men. 

In the original study of the live shingles vaccine, a protective effect against dementia was shown only in women. 

In the current study, the delay in dementia diagnosis was seen in both sexes but was stronger in women, showing a 22% increased time without dementia in women versus a 13% increased time in men with the recombinant versus the live vaccine. 

As expected, the recombinant vaccine was associated with a lower risk for shingles disease vs the live vaccine (2.5% versus 3.5%), but women did not have a better response than men did in this respect. 

“The better protection against shingles with the recombinant vaccine was similar in men and women, an observation that might be one reason to question the possible mechanism behind the dementia effect being better suppression of the herpes zoster virus by the recombinant vaccine,” Dr. Harrison commented. 

Though these findings are not likely to lead to any immediate changes in policy regarding the shingles vaccine, Dr. Harrison said it would be interesting to see whether uptake of the vaccine increased after this study. 

He estimated that, currently in the United Kingdom, about 60% of older adults choose to have the shingles vaccine. A 2020 study in the United States found that only about one-third of US adults over 60 had received the vaccine. 

“It will be interesting to see if that figure increases after these data are publicized, but I am not recommending that people have the vaccine specifically to lower their risk of dementia because of the caveats about the study that we have discussed,” he commented. 
 

Outside Experts Positive 

Outside experts, providing comment to the Science Media Centre, welcomed the new research. 

“ The study is very well-conducted and adds to previous data indicating that vaccination against shingles is associated with lower dementia risk. More research is needed in future to determine why this vaccine is associated with lower dementia risk,” said Tara Spires-Jones, FMedSci, president of the British Neuroscience Association. 

The high number of patients in the study and the adjustments for potential confounders are also strong points, noted Andrew Doig, PhD, professor of biochemistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.

“This is a significant result, comparable in effectiveness to the recent antibody drugs for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Doig said. “Administering the recombinant shingles vaccine could well be a simple and cheap way to lower the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Dr. Doig noted that a link between herpes zoster infection and the onset of dementia has been suspected for some time, and a trial of the antiviral drug valacyclovir against Alzheimer’s disease is currently underway.

In regard to the shingles vaccine, he said a placebo-controlled trial would be needed to prove causality. 

“We also need to see how many years the effect might last and whether we should vaccinate people at a younger age. We know that the path to Alzheimer’s can start decades before any symptoms are apparent, so the vaccine might be even more effective if given to people in their 40s or 50s,” he said.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Taquet reported no disclosures. Dr. Doig is a founder, director, and consultant for PharmaKure, which works on Alzheimer’s drugs and diagnostics. Other commentators declared no disclosures.

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

Receipt of a newer recombinant version of a shingles vaccine is associated with a significant delay in dementia diagnosis in older adults, a new study suggests.

The study builds on previous observations of a reduction in dementia risk with the older live shingles vaccine and reports a delay in dementia diagnosis of 164 days with the newer recombinant version, compared with the live vaccine. 

“Given the prevalence of dementia, a delay of 164 days in diagnosis would not be a trivial effect at the public health level. It’s a big enough effect that if there is a causality it feels meaningful,” said senior author Paul Harrison, DM, FRCPsych, professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford, Oxford, England. 

But Dr. Harrison stressed that the study had not proven that the shingles vaccine reduced dementia risk. 

“The design of the study allows us to do away with many of the confounding effects we usually see in observational studies, but this is still an observational study, and as such it cannot prove a definite causal effect,” he said. 

The study was published online on July 25 in Nature Medicine.
 

‘Natural Experiment’

Given the risk for deleterious consequences of shingles, vaccination is now recommended for older adults in many countries. The previously used live shingles vaccine (Zostavax) is being replaced in most countries with the new recombinant shingles vaccine (Shingrix), which is more effective at preventing shingles infection. 

The current study made use of a “natural experiment” in the United States, which switched over from use of the live vaccine to the recombinant vaccine in October 2017. 

Researchers used electronic heath records to compare the incidence of a dementia diagnosis in individuals who received the live shingles vaccine prior to October 2017 with those who received the recombinant version after the United States made the switch. 

They also used propensity score matching to further control for confounding factors, comparing 103,837 individuals who received a first dose of the live shingles vaccine between October 2014 and September 2017 with the same number of matched people who received the recombinant vaccine between November 2017 and October 2020. 

Results showed that within the 6 years after vaccination, the recombinant vaccine was associated with a delay in the diagnosis of dementia, compared with the live vaccine. Specifically, receiving the recombinant vaccine was associated with a 17% increase in diagnosis-free time, translating to 164 additional days lived without a diagnosis of dementia in those subsequently affected. 

As an additional control, the researchers also found significantly lower risks for dementia in individuals receiving the new recombinant shingles vaccine vs two other vaccines commonly used in older people: influenza and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccines, with increases in diagnosis-free time of 14%-27%. 

Reduced Risk or Delayed Diagnosis?

Speaking at a Science Media Centre press conference on the study, lead author Maxime Taquet, PhD, FRCPsych, clinical lecturer in psychiatry at the University of Oxford, noted that the total number of dementia cases were similar in the two shingles vaccine groups by the end of the 6-year follow-up period but there was a difference in the time at which they received a diagnosis of dementia.

“The study suggests that rather than actually reducing dementia risk, the recombinant vaccine delays the onset of dementia compared to the live vaccine in patients who go on to develop the condition,” he explained. 

But when comparing the recombinant vaccine with the influenza and tetanus/diphtheria/pertussis vaccines there was a clear reduction in dementia risk itself, Dr. Taquet reported. 

“It might well be that the live vaccine has a potential effect on the risk of dementia itself and therefore the recombinant vaccine only shows a delay in dementia compared to the live vaccine, but both of them might decrease the overall risk of dementia,” he suggested. 

But the researchers cautioned that this study could not prove causality. 

“While the two groups were very carefully matched in terms of factors that might influence the development of dementia, we still have to be cautious before assuming that the vaccine is indeed causally reducing the risk of onset of dementia,” Dr. Harrison warned. 

The researchers say the results would need to be confirmed in a randomized trial, which may have to be conducted in a slightly younger age group, as currently shingles vaccine is recommended for all older individuals in the United Kingdom. 

Vaccine recommendations vary from country to country, Dr. Harrison added. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends the recombinant shingles vaccine for all adults aged 50 years or older. 

In the meantime, it would be interesting to see whether further observational studies in other countries find similar results as this US study, Dr. Harrison said.  
 

Mechanism Uncertain

Speculating on a possible mechanism behind the findings, Dr. Harrison suggested two plausible explanations.

“First, it is thought that the herpes virus could be one of many factors that could promote dementia, so a vaccine that stops reactivation of this virus might therefore be delaying that process,” he noted. 

The other possibility is that adjuvants included in the recombinant vaccine to stimulate the immune system might have played a role. 

“We don’t have any data on the mechanism, and thus study did not address that, so further studies are needed to look into this,” Dr. Harrison said. 
 

Stronger Effect in Women

Another intriguing finding is that the association with the recombinant vaccine and delayed dementia diagnosis seemed to be stronger in women vs men. 

In the original study of the live shingles vaccine, a protective effect against dementia was shown only in women. 

In the current study, the delay in dementia diagnosis was seen in both sexes but was stronger in women, showing a 22% increased time without dementia in women versus a 13% increased time in men with the recombinant versus the live vaccine. 

As expected, the recombinant vaccine was associated with a lower risk for shingles disease vs the live vaccine (2.5% versus 3.5%), but women did not have a better response than men did in this respect. 

“The better protection against shingles with the recombinant vaccine was similar in men and women, an observation that might be one reason to question the possible mechanism behind the dementia effect being better suppression of the herpes zoster virus by the recombinant vaccine,” Dr. Harrison commented. 

Though these findings are not likely to lead to any immediate changes in policy regarding the shingles vaccine, Dr. Harrison said it would be interesting to see whether uptake of the vaccine increased after this study. 

He estimated that, currently in the United Kingdom, about 60% of older adults choose to have the shingles vaccine. A 2020 study in the United States found that only about one-third of US adults over 60 had received the vaccine. 

“It will be interesting to see if that figure increases after these data are publicized, but I am not recommending that people have the vaccine specifically to lower their risk of dementia because of the caveats about the study that we have discussed,” he commented. 
 

Outside Experts Positive 

Outside experts, providing comment to the Science Media Centre, welcomed the new research. 

“ The study is very well-conducted and adds to previous data indicating that vaccination against shingles is associated with lower dementia risk. More research is needed in future to determine why this vaccine is associated with lower dementia risk,” said Tara Spires-Jones, FMedSci, president of the British Neuroscience Association. 

The high number of patients in the study and the adjustments for potential confounders are also strong points, noted Andrew Doig, PhD, professor of biochemistry, University of Manchester, Manchester, England.

“This is a significant result, comparable in effectiveness to the recent antibody drugs for Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Doig said. “Administering the recombinant shingles vaccine could well be a simple and cheap way to lower the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.”

Dr. Doig noted that a link between herpes zoster infection and the onset of dementia has been suspected for some time, and a trial of the antiviral drug valacyclovir against Alzheimer’s disease is currently underway.

In regard to the shingles vaccine, he said a placebo-controlled trial would be needed to prove causality. 

“We also need to see how many years the effect might last and whether we should vaccinate people at a younger age. We know that the path to Alzheimer’s can start decades before any symptoms are apparent, so the vaccine might be even more effective if given to people in their 40s or 50s,” he said.

Dr. Harrison and Dr. Taquet reported no disclosures. Dr. Doig is a founder, director, and consultant for PharmaKure, which works on Alzheimer’s drugs and diagnostics. Other commentators declared no disclosures.

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

Youth with conduct disorder (CD) have extensive brain structure differences, new research showed.

In findings that illuminate the differences in areas of the brain critical for emotional processing and decision-making, investigators found lower cortical surface area and reduced volume in the limbic and striatal regions of the brain, as well as lower thalamus volume, in youth with CD.

“We know very little about this disorder even though it can carry a high burden for families and societies,” co–lead author Yidian Gao, PhD, of the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, said in a press release. 

“The sample included in our study is 10-20 times larger than previous studies and contains data on children from North America, Europe, and Asia. It provides the most compelling evidence to date that CD is associated with widespread structural brain differences,” he added.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

An Understudied Disorder

In the largest study of its kind, researchers at the Universities of Bath and Birmingham, both in England, collaborated with research teams across Europe, North America, and Asia, as part of the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis–Antisocial Behavior Working Group to learn more about one of the “least researched psychiatric disorders,” they wrote. 

The investigators used MRI to examine the brain structure of 1185 children with a clinical diagnosis of CD and 1253 typically developing children from 17-21 across 15 international study cohorts.

After adjusting for total intracranial volume investigators found that youth with CD (29% women; mean age, 13.7 years) had lower total surface area and lower regional surface area in 26 of the 34 cortical regions, spanning all four lobes of the brain, compared with their typically developing counterparts (35.6% women; mean age, 13.5 years).

Youth with CD also showed greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex (P = .0001) and lower cortical thickness in the banks of the superior temporal sulcus vs those without CD (P = .0010).

In addition, the CD group also had lower volume in the thalamus (P = .0009), amygdala (P = .0014), hippocampus (P = .0031), and nucleus accumbens (P = .0052). 

Most findings remained significant after adjusting for intelligence quotient, psychiatric comorbidities, and psychotropic medication use. Of note, group difference in cortical thickness, 22 of 27 differences in surface area. In addition, three of four subcortical differences remained robust after adjusting for co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the most frequent comorbidity.

When the investigators divided individuals with CD into two subgroups — those with high vs low levels of callous-unemotional traits — they found limited overall differences. However, those with high callous-unemotional traits had lower surface area in the superior temporal and superior frontal gyri vs those with low callous-unemotional traits and the typically developing group.

Investigators also found that individuals with childhood-onset CD had greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex compared with those with adolescent-onset CD. 

Study limitations include comparison of different cohorts with differing protocols that could affect the validity of the findings. In addition, subgroup samples were small and had lower statistical power.

“Our finding of robust brain alterations in conduct disorder — similar to those in more widely recognized and widely treated disorders such as ADHD — emphasize the need for a greater focus on conduct disorder in research, treatment, and public policy,” the authors noted.

Seven study authors reported conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

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

Youth with conduct disorder (CD) have extensive brain structure differences, new research showed.

In findings that illuminate the differences in areas of the brain critical for emotional processing and decision-making, investigators found lower cortical surface area and reduced volume in the limbic and striatal regions of the brain, as well as lower thalamus volume, in youth with CD.

“We know very little about this disorder even though it can carry a high burden for families and societies,” co–lead author Yidian Gao, PhD, of the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, said in a press release. 

“The sample included in our study is 10-20 times larger than previous studies and contains data on children from North America, Europe, and Asia. It provides the most compelling evidence to date that CD is associated with widespread structural brain differences,” he added.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

An Understudied Disorder

In the largest study of its kind, researchers at the Universities of Bath and Birmingham, both in England, collaborated with research teams across Europe, North America, and Asia, as part of the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis–Antisocial Behavior Working Group to learn more about one of the “least researched psychiatric disorders,” they wrote. 

The investigators used MRI to examine the brain structure of 1185 children with a clinical diagnosis of CD and 1253 typically developing children from 17-21 across 15 international study cohorts.

After adjusting for total intracranial volume investigators found that youth with CD (29% women; mean age, 13.7 years) had lower total surface area and lower regional surface area in 26 of the 34 cortical regions, spanning all four lobes of the brain, compared with their typically developing counterparts (35.6% women; mean age, 13.5 years).

Youth with CD also showed greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex (P = .0001) and lower cortical thickness in the banks of the superior temporal sulcus vs those without CD (P = .0010).

In addition, the CD group also had lower volume in the thalamus (P = .0009), amygdala (P = .0014), hippocampus (P = .0031), and nucleus accumbens (P = .0052). 

Most findings remained significant after adjusting for intelligence quotient, psychiatric comorbidities, and psychotropic medication use. Of note, group difference in cortical thickness, 22 of 27 differences in surface area. In addition, three of four subcortical differences remained robust after adjusting for co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the most frequent comorbidity.

When the investigators divided individuals with CD into two subgroups — those with high vs low levels of callous-unemotional traits — they found limited overall differences. However, those with high callous-unemotional traits had lower surface area in the superior temporal and superior frontal gyri vs those with low callous-unemotional traits and the typically developing group.

Investigators also found that individuals with childhood-onset CD had greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex compared with those with adolescent-onset CD. 

Study limitations include comparison of different cohorts with differing protocols that could affect the validity of the findings. In addition, subgroup samples were small and had lower statistical power.

“Our finding of robust brain alterations in conduct disorder — similar to those in more widely recognized and widely treated disorders such as ADHD — emphasize the need for a greater focus on conduct disorder in research, treatment, and public policy,” the authors noted.

Seven study authors reported conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

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

Youth with conduct disorder (CD) have extensive brain structure differences, new research showed.

In findings that illuminate the differences in areas of the brain critical for emotional processing and decision-making, investigators found lower cortical surface area and reduced volume in the limbic and striatal regions of the brain, as well as lower thalamus volume, in youth with CD.

“We know very little about this disorder even though it can carry a high burden for families and societies,” co–lead author Yidian Gao, PhD, of the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, said in a press release. 

“The sample included in our study is 10-20 times larger than previous studies and contains data on children from North America, Europe, and Asia. It provides the most compelling evidence to date that CD is associated with widespread structural brain differences,” he added.

The findings were published online in The Lancet Psychiatry.
 

An Understudied Disorder

In the largest study of its kind, researchers at the Universities of Bath and Birmingham, both in England, collaborated with research teams across Europe, North America, and Asia, as part of the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis–Antisocial Behavior Working Group to learn more about one of the “least researched psychiatric disorders,” they wrote. 

The investigators used MRI to examine the brain structure of 1185 children with a clinical diagnosis of CD and 1253 typically developing children from 17-21 across 15 international study cohorts.

After adjusting for total intracranial volume investigators found that youth with CD (29% women; mean age, 13.7 years) had lower total surface area and lower regional surface area in 26 of the 34 cortical regions, spanning all four lobes of the brain, compared with their typically developing counterparts (35.6% women; mean age, 13.5 years).

Youth with CD also showed greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex (P = .0001) and lower cortical thickness in the banks of the superior temporal sulcus vs those without CD (P = .0010).

In addition, the CD group also had lower volume in the thalamus (P = .0009), amygdala (P = .0014), hippocampus (P = .0031), and nucleus accumbens (P = .0052). 

Most findings remained significant after adjusting for intelligence quotient, psychiatric comorbidities, and psychotropic medication use. Of note, group difference in cortical thickness, 22 of 27 differences in surface area. In addition, three of four subcortical differences remained robust after adjusting for co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, the most frequent comorbidity.

When the investigators divided individuals with CD into two subgroups — those with high vs low levels of callous-unemotional traits — they found limited overall differences. However, those with high callous-unemotional traits had lower surface area in the superior temporal and superior frontal gyri vs those with low callous-unemotional traits and the typically developing group.

Investigators also found that individuals with childhood-onset CD had greater cortical thickness in the caudal anterior cingulate cortex compared with those with adolescent-onset CD. 

Study limitations include comparison of different cohorts with differing protocols that could affect the validity of the findings. In addition, subgroup samples were small and had lower statistical power.

“Our finding of robust brain alterations in conduct disorder — similar to those in more widely recognized and widely treated disorders such as ADHD — emphasize the need for a greater focus on conduct disorder in research, treatment, and public policy,” the authors noted.

Seven study authors reported conflicts of interest with various pharmaceutical companies and other organizations.

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

Physicians who fail to help patients suffering from addiction blame their institutions and their own limitations in skill, knowledge, available brainpower, and faith that interventions will help patients, a systematic review found.

Researchers analyzed 283 international studies with data from 66,732 physicians who were asked about their reluctance to address addiction treatment and substance use. Of the studies, 61.5% cited lack of knowledge as a factor, 61.1% cited lack of institutional support, 60.1% cited lack of skills, 48.1% cited lack of available brainpower, and 46.6% cited lack of expectations of benefit, reported Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, and colleagues, in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of Priority in Addiction Care

In an interview, Sarah Wakeman, MD, senior medical director for substance use disorder at Mass General Brigham, Boston, questioned the lack of priority given to addiction care. “Many of the perceived barriers that physicians cite for why they don’t offer addiction treatment exist for many types of health conditions we routinely manage,” said Dr. Wakeman, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study. “Yet we as physicians would never opt out of treating diabetes or heart disease. So why is it acceptable to opt out of treating addiction?”

As the review notes, an estimate suggests that more than 46 million people in the United States were diagnosed with substance abuse disorder in the past year, and misuse of alcohol and illegal drugs costs more than $442 billion a year. However, few people with addiction get treatment — estimated at only 6.3% in 2021 — and screening rates are low.

According to its authors, the review’s goal is to summarize studies into barriers to evidence-based addiction strategies such as screening, referral to treatment, medications, and behavioral interventions.

The researchers analyzed 283 studies from 1960 to 2021, mainly (64.0%) from 2010 to 2021, with only a few (2.7%) from before 2000. Most (60.1%) were survey-based, and most (59.4%) were from the United States. The studies mainly examined alcohol, opioid, and tobacco addiction.
 

Challenges in Treating Addiction

The studies pinpointed various challenges in the treatment of people with addiction. On the institution front, they noted obstacles such as lack of trained staff, prior authorization hassles, lack of insurance coverage, and “acceptance of addiction interventions by staff,” according to the review. In terms of knowledge and skill, “knowledge was more deficient for treatment than for screening or diagnosis and for drug use more than for alcohol or tobacco use.”

Available brainpower “was not often characterized beyond a general sense of overwhelm with clinical tasks (eg, ‘just too busy’) and the need to prioritize patients’ competing needs,” the review stated.

The review authors wrote that “other reasons for reluctance (eg, negative social influences, negative emotions toward people who use drugs, and fear of harming the relationship with the patient by discussing substance use) could each be viewed as manifestations of stigma associated with substance use disorder and its treatment.”

The review identified limitations such as “inconsistent use of terms” across studies and lack of detail in some studies about participation by the “audience of focus.” Additionally, the authors noted that the medical treatments for addiction have evolved over the past several decades, as has the drug market.

Dr. Wakeman said the review is well done with unsurprising results. “It is helpful to understand what physicians perceive the barriers to be so that further interventions can be designed to surmount those barriers, such as skills training or educational interventions,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “we need to end substance use disorder exceptionalism and stop approaching addiction treatment as if it is something different from the rest of healthcare.”

In an interview, Michael L. Barnett, MD, associate professor of health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the review is “very thorough and documents a really wide literature that is difficult to summarize, which is an impressive contribution.”

Dr. Barnett, who’s familiar with the review findings but didn’t take part in the research, also noted that the review doesn’t confirm whether the perceived obstacles actually exist or how they can be fixed. In addition, he said, “the authors spend very little time addressing the elephant in the room, which is that addiction care is poorly compensated. If physicians made 10 times the money for addiction care, I bet a lot of this ‘reluctance’ would disappear.”

Additionally, he said, “It’s easy to endorse innocuous excuses for reluctance when the real reason is that a physician just doesn’t want to treat a stigmatized population.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakeman is an author and a textbook editor for Wolters Kluwer and Springer. Dr. Barnett had no disclosures.

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

Physicians who fail to help patients suffering from addiction blame their institutions and their own limitations in skill, knowledge, available brainpower, and faith that interventions will help patients, a systematic review found.

Researchers analyzed 283 international studies with data from 66,732 physicians who were asked about their reluctance to address addiction treatment and substance use. Of the studies, 61.5% cited lack of knowledge as a factor, 61.1% cited lack of institutional support, 60.1% cited lack of skills, 48.1% cited lack of available brainpower, and 46.6% cited lack of expectations of benefit, reported Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, and colleagues, in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of Priority in Addiction Care

In an interview, Sarah Wakeman, MD, senior medical director for substance use disorder at Mass General Brigham, Boston, questioned the lack of priority given to addiction care. “Many of the perceived barriers that physicians cite for why they don’t offer addiction treatment exist for many types of health conditions we routinely manage,” said Dr. Wakeman, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study. “Yet we as physicians would never opt out of treating diabetes or heart disease. So why is it acceptable to opt out of treating addiction?”

As the review notes, an estimate suggests that more than 46 million people in the United States were diagnosed with substance abuse disorder in the past year, and misuse of alcohol and illegal drugs costs more than $442 billion a year. However, few people with addiction get treatment — estimated at only 6.3% in 2021 — and screening rates are low.

According to its authors, the review’s goal is to summarize studies into barriers to evidence-based addiction strategies such as screening, referral to treatment, medications, and behavioral interventions.

The researchers analyzed 283 studies from 1960 to 2021, mainly (64.0%) from 2010 to 2021, with only a few (2.7%) from before 2000. Most (60.1%) were survey-based, and most (59.4%) were from the United States. The studies mainly examined alcohol, opioid, and tobacco addiction.
 

Challenges in Treating Addiction

The studies pinpointed various challenges in the treatment of people with addiction. On the institution front, they noted obstacles such as lack of trained staff, prior authorization hassles, lack of insurance coverage, and “acceptance of addiction interventions by staff,” according to the review. In terms of knowledge and skill, “knowledge was more deficient for treatment than for screening or diagnosis and for drug use more than for alcohol or tobacco use.”

Available brainpower “was not often characterized beyond a general sense of overwhelm with clinical tasks (eg, ‘just too busy’) and the need to prioritize patients’ competing needs,” the review stated.

The review authors wrote that “other reasons for reluctance (eg, negative social influences, negative emotions toward people who use drugs, and fear of harming the relationship with the patient by discussing substance use) could each be viewed as manifestations of stigma associated with substance use disorder and its treatment.”

The review identified limitations such as “inconsistent use of terms” across studies and lack of detail in some studies about participation by the “audience of focus.” Additionally, the authors noted that the medical treatments for addiction have evolved over the past several decades, as has the drug market.

Dr. Wakeman said the review is well done with unsurprising results. “It is helpful to understand what physicians perceive the barriers to be so that further interventions can be designed to surmount those barriers, such as skills training or educational interventions,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “we need to end substance use disorder exceptionalism and stop approaching addiction treatment as if it is something different from the rest of healthcare.”

In an interview, Michael L. Barnett, MD, associate professor of health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the review is “very thorough and documents a really wide literature that is difficult to summarize, which is an impressive contribution.”

Dr. Barnett, who’s familiar with the review findings but didn’t take part in the research, also noted that the review doesn’t confirm whether the perceived obstacles actually exist or how they can be fixed. In addition, he said, “the authors spend very little time addressing the elephant in the room, which is that addiction care is poorly compensated. If physicians made 10 times the money for addiction care, I bet a lot of this ‘reluctance’ would disappear.”

Additionally, he said, “It’s easy to endorse innocuous excuses for reluctance when the real reason is that a physician just doesn’t want to treat a stigmatized population.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakeman is an author and a textbook editor for Wolters Kluwer and Springer. Dr. Barnett had no disclosures.

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

Physicians who fail to help patients suffering from addiction blame their institutions and their own limitations in skill, knowledge, available brainpower, and faith that interventions will help patients, a systematic review found.

Researchers analyzed 283 international studies with data from 66,732 physicians who were asked about their reluctance to address addiction treatment and substance use. Of the studies, 61.5% cited lack of knowledge as a factor, 61.1% cited lack of institutional support, 60.1% cited lack of skills, 48.1% cited lack of available brainpower, and 46.6% cited lack of expectations of benefit, reported Wilson M. Compton, MD, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Baltimore, and colleagues, in JAMA Network Open.
 

Lack of Priority in Addiction Care

In an interview, Sarah Wakeman, MD, senior medical director for substance use disorder at Mass General Brigham, Boston, questioned the lack of priority given to addiction care. “Many of the perceived barriers that physicians cite for why they don’t offer addiction treatment exist for many types of health conditions we routinely manage,” said Dr. Wakeman, who’s familiar with the findings but didn’t take part in the study. “Yet we as physicians would never opt out of treating diabetes or heart disease. So why is it acceptable to opt out of treating addiction?”

As the review notes, an estimate suggests that more than 46 million people in the United States were diagnosed with substance abuse disorder in the past year, and misuse of alcohol and illegal drugs costs more than $442 billion a year. However, few people with addiction get treatment — estimated at only 6.3% in 2021 — and screening rates are low.

According to its authors, the review’s goal is to summarize studies into barriers to evidence-based addiction strategies such as screening, referral to treatment, medications, and behavioral interventions.

The researchers analyzed 283 studies from 1960 to 2021, mainly (64.0%) from 2010 to 2021, with only a few (2.7%) from before 2000. Most (60.1%) were survey-based, and most (59.4%) were from the United States. The studies mainly examined alcohol, opioid, and tobacco addiction.
 

Challenges in Treating Addiction

The studies pinpointed various challenges in the treatment of people with addiction. On the institution front, they noted obstacles such as lack of trained staff, prior authorization hassles, lack of insurance coverage, and “acceptance of addiction interventions by staff,” according to the review. In terms of knowledge and skill, “knowledge was more deficient for treatment than for screening or diagnosis and for drug use more than for alcohol or tobacco use.”

Available brainpower “was not often characterized beyond a general sense of overwhelm with clinical tasks (eg, ‘just too busy’) and the need to prioritize patients’ competing needs,” the review stated.

The review authors wrote that “other reasons for reluctance (eg, negative social influences, negative emotions toward people who use drugs, and fear of harming the relationship with the patient by discussing substance use) could each be viewed as manifestations of stigma associated with substance use disorder and its treatment.”

The review identified limitations such as “inconsistent use of terms” across studies and lack of detail in some studies about participation by the “audience of focus.” Additionally, the authors noted that the medical treatments for addiction have evolved over the past several decades, as has the drug market.

Dr. Wakeman said the review is well done with unsurprising results. “It is helpful to understand what physicians perceive the barriers to be so that further interventions can be designed to surmount those barriers, such as skills training or educational interventions,” she said.

Going forward, she said, “we need to end substance use disorder exceptionalism and stop approaching addiction treatment as if it is something different from the rest of healthcare.”

In an interview, Michael L. Barnett, MD, associate professor of health policy and management at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, said the review is “very thorough and documents a really wide literature that is difficult to summarize, which is an impressive contribution.”

Dr. Barnett, who’s familiar with the review findings but didn’t take part in the research, also noted that the review doesn’t confirm whether the perceived obstacles actually exist or how they can be fixed. In addition, he said, “the authors spend very little time addressing the elephant in the room, which is that addiction care is poorly compensated. If physicians made 10 times the money for addiction care, I bet a lot of this ‘reluctance’ would disappear.”

Additionally, he said, “It’s easy to endorse innocuous excuses for reluctance when the real reason is that a physician just doesn’t want to treat a stigmatized population.”

The study was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Two authors disclosed receiving support from the Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug Abuse, and National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wakeman is an author and a textbook editor for Wolters Kluwer and Springer. Dr. Barnett had no disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Mental health disorders increase the likelihood of developing chronic diabetic complications and vice versa across all age groups in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the relative timing and association between chronic diabetic complications and mental health disorders may aid in improving diabetes screening and care.
• Researchers used a US national healthcare claims database (data obtained from 2001 to 2018) to analyze individuals with and without T1D and T2D, who had no prior mental health disorder or chronic diabetic complication.
• The onset and presence of chronic diabetic complications and mental health disorders were identified to determine their possible association.
• Individuals were stratified by age: 0-19, 20-39, 40-59, and ≥ 60 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 44,735 patients with T1D (47.5% women) and 152,187 with T2D (46.0% women), who were matched with 356,630 individuals without diabetes (51.8% women).
• The presence of chronic diabetic complications increased the risk for a mental health disorder across all age groups, with the highest risk seen in patients aged ≥ 60 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.9).
• Similarly, diagnosis of a mental health disorder increased the risk for chronic diabetic complications across all age groups, with the highest risk seen in patients aged 0-19 years (HR, 2.5).
• Patients with T2D had a significantly higher risk for a mental health disorder and a lower risk for chronic diabetic complications than those with T1D across all age groups, except those aged ≥ 60 years.
• The bidirectional association between mental health disorders and chronic diabetic complications was not affected by the diabetes type (P > .05 for all interactions).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and healthcare systems likely need to increase their focus on MHDs [mental health disorders], and innovative models of care are required to optimize care for both individuals with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Maya Watanabe, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th revision codes, which might have led to misclassification of mental health conditions, chronic diabetes complications, and diabetes type. The data did not capture the symptom onset and severity. The findings may not be generalizable to populations outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (now Breakthrough T1D). Some authors reported receiving speaker or expert testimony honoraria and research support, and some declared serving on medical or digital advisory boards or as consultants for various pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Mental health disorders increase the likelihood of developing chronic diabetic complications and vice versa across all age groups in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the relative timing and association between chronic diabetic complications and mental health disorders may aid in improving diabetes screening and care.
• Researchers used a US national healthcare claims database (data obtained from 2001 to 2018) to analyze individuals with and without T1D and T2D, who had no prior mental health disorder or chronic diabetic complication.
• The onset and presence of chronic diabetic complications and mental health disorders were identified to determine their possible association.
• Individuals were stratified by age: 0-19, 20-39, 40-59, and ≥ 60 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 44,735 patients with T1D (47.5% women) and 152,187 with T2D (46.0% women), who were matched with 356,630 individuals without diabetes (51.8% women).
• The presence of chronic diabetic complications increased the risk for a mental health disorder across all age groups, with the highest risk seen in patients aged ≥ 60 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.9).
• Similarly, diagnosis of a mental health disorder increased the risk for chronic diabetic complications across all age groups, with the highest risk seen in patients aged 0-19 years (HR, 2.5).
• Patients with T2D had a significantly higher risk for a mental health disorder and a lower risk for chronic diabetic complications than those with T1D across all age groups, except those aged ≥ 60 years.
• The bidirectional association between mental health disorders and chronic diabetic complications was not affected by the diabetes type (P > .05 for all interactions).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and healthcare systems likely need to increase their focus on MHDs [mental health disorders], and innovative models of care are required to optimize care for both individuals with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Maya Watanabe, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th revision codes, which might have led to misclassification of mental health conditions, chronic diabetes complications, and diabetes type. The data did not capture the symptom onset and severity. The findings may not be generalizable to populations outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (now Breakthrough T1D). Some authors reported receiving speaker or expert testimony honoraria and research support, and some declared serving on medical or digital advisory boards or as consultants for various pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

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

TOPLINE:

Mental health disorders increase the likelihood of developing chronic diabetic complications and vice versa across all age groups in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the relative timing and association between chronic diabetic complications and mental health disorders may aid in improving diabetes screening and care.
• Researchers used a US national healthcare claims database (data obtained from 2001 to 2018) to analyze individuals with and without T1D and T2D, who had no prior mental health disorder or chronic diabetic complication.
• The onset and presence of chronic diabetic complications and mental health disorders were identified to determine their possible association.
• Individuals were stratified by age: 0-19, 20-39, 40-59, and ≥ 60 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Researchers analyzed 44,735 patients with T1D (47.5% women) and 152,187 with T2D (46.0% women), who were matched with 356,630 individuals without diabetes (51.8% women).
• The presence of chronic diabetic complications increased the risk for a mental health disorder across all age groups, with the highest risk seen in patients aged ≥ 60 years (hazard ratio [HR], 2.9).
• Similarly, diagnosis of a mental health disorder increased the risk for chronic diabetic complications across all age groups, with the highest risk seen in patients aged 0-19 years (HR, 2.5).
• Patients with T2D had a significantly higher risk for a mental health disorder and a lower risk for chronic diabetic complications than those with T1D across all age groups, except those aged ≥ 60 years.
• The bidirectional association between mental health disorders and chronic diabetic complications was not affected by the diabetes type (P > .05 for all interactions).

IN PRACTICE:

“Clinicians and healthcare systems likely need to increase their focus on MHDs [mental health disorders], and innovative models of care are required to optimize care for both individuals with type 1 diabetes and those with type 2 diabetes,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Maya Watanabe, Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, was published online in Diabetes Care.

LIMITATIONS:

The study relied on International Classification of Diseases 9th and 10th revision codes, which might have led to misclassification of mental health conditions, chronic diabetes complications, and diabetes type. The data did not capture the symptom onset and severity. The findings may not be generalizable to populations outside the United States.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (now Breakthrough T1D). Some authors reported receiving speaker or expert testimony honoraria and research support, and some declared serving on medical or digital advisory boards or as consultants for various pharmaceutical and medical device companies.

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

“We really aren’t taking care of records — we’re taking care of people.” — Dr. Lawrence Weed

What is the purpose of a progress note? Anyone? Yes, you there. “Insurance billing?” Yes, that’s a good one. Anyone else? “To remember what you did?” Excellent. Another? Yes, that’s right, for others to follow along in your care. These are all good reasons for a progress note to exist. But they aren’t the whole story. Let’s start at the beginning.

Charts were once a collection of paper sheets with handwritten notes. Sometimes illegible, sometimes beautiful, always efficient. A progress note back then could be just 10 characters, AK, LN2, X,X,X,X,X (with X’s marking nitrogen sprays). Then came the healthcare K-Pg event: the conversion to EMRs. Those doctors who survived evolved into computer programmers, creating blocks of text from a few keystrokes. But like toddler-sized Legos, the blocks made it impossible to build a note that is nuanced or precise. Worse yet, many notes consisting of blocks from one note added awkwardly to a new note, creating grotesque structures unrecognizable as anything that should exist in nature. Words and numbers, but no information.

Newtown grafitti / flickr / CC BY-2.0

Thanks to the eternity of EMR, these creations live on, hideous and useless. They waste not only the server’s energy but also our time. Few things are more maddening than scrolling to reach the bottom of another physician’s note only to find there is nothing there.

Whose fault is this? Anyone? Yes, that’s right, insurers. As there are probably no payers in this audience, let’s blame them. I agree, the crushing burden of documentation-to-get-reimbursed has forced us to create “notes” that add no value to us but add up points for us to get paid for them. CMS, payers, prior authorizations, and now even patients, it seems we are documenting for lots of people except for us. There isn’t time to satisfy all and this significant burden for every encounter is a proximate cause for doctors despair. Until now.

In 2024, came our story’s deus ex machina: the AI scribe. A tool that can listen to a doctor visit, then from the ether, generate a note. A fully formed, comprehensive, sometimes pretty note that satisfies all audiences. Dr. Larry Weed must be dancing in heaven. It was Dr. Weed who led us from the nicotine-stained logs of the 1950s to the powerful problem-based notes we use today, an innovation that rivals the stethoscope in its impact.

Professor Weed also predicted that computers would be important to capture and make sense of patient data, helping us make accurate diagnoses and efficient plans. Again, he was right. He would surely be advocating to take advantage of AI scribes’ marvelous ability to capture salient data and present it in the form of a problem-oriented medical record.

AI scribes will be ubiquitous soon; I’m fast and even for me they save time. They also allow, for the first time in a decade, to turn from the glow of a screen to actually face the patient – we no longer have to scribe and care simultaneously. Hallelujah. And yet, lest I disappoint you without a twist, it seems with AI scribes, like EMRs we lose a little something too.

Like self-driving cars or ChatGPT-generated letters, they remove cognitive loads. They are lovely when you have to multitask or are trying to recall a visit from hours (days) ago. Using them, you’ll feel faster, lighter, freer, happier. But what’s missing is the thinking. At the end, you have an exquisite note, but you didn’t write it. It has the salient points, but none of the mental work to create it. AI scribes subvert the valuable work of synthesis. That was the critical part of Dr. Weed’s discovery: writing problem-oriented notes helped us think better.

Kaiser Permanente

Writing allows for the friction that helps us process what is going on with a patient. It allows for the discovery of diagnoses and prompts plans. When I was an intern, one of my attendings would hand write notes, succinctly showing what he had observed and was thinking. He’d sketch diagrams in the chart, for example, to help illustrate how we’d work though the toxic, metabolic, and infectious etiologies of acute liver failure. Sublime.

The act of writing also helps remind us there is a person attached to these words. Like a handwritten sympathy card, it is intimate, human. Even using our EMR, I’d still often type sentences that help tell the patient’s story. “Her sister just died. Utterly devastated. I’ll forward chart to Bob (her PCP) to check in on her.” Or: “Scratch golfer wants to know why he is getting so many SCCs now. ‘Like bankruptcy, gradually then suddenly,’ I explained. I think I broke through.”

Since we’ve concluded the purpose of a note is mostly to capture data, AI scribes are a godsend. They do so with remarkable quality and efficiency. We’ll just have to remember if the diagnosis is unclear, then it might help to write the note out yourself. And even when done by the AI machine, we might add human touches now and again lest there be no art left in what we do.

“For sale. Sun hat. Never worn.”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“We really aren’t taking care of records — we’re taking care of people.” — Dr. Lawrence Weed

What is the purpose of a progress note? Anyone? Yes, you there. “Insurance billing?” Yes, that’s a good one. Anyone else? “To remember what you did?” Excellent. Another? Yes, that’s right, for others to follow along in your care. These are all good reasons for a progress note to exist. But they aren’t the whole story. Let’s start at the beginning.

Charts were once a collection of paper sheets with handwritten notes. Sometimes illegible, sometimes beautiful, always efficient. A progress note back then could be just 10 characters, AK, LN2, X,X,X,X,X (with X’s marking nitrogen sprays). Then came the healthcare K-Pg event: the conversion to EMRs. Those doctors who survived evolved into computer programmers, creating blocks of text from a few keystrokes. But like toddler-sized Legos, the blocks made it impossible to build a note that is nuanced or precise. Worse yet, many notes consisting of blocks from one note added awkwardly to a new note, creating grotesque structures unrecognizable as anything that should exist in nature. Words and numbers, but no information.

Newtown grafitti / flickr / CC BY-2.0

Thanks to the eternity of EMR, these creations live on, hideous and useless. They waste not only the server’s energy but also our time. Few things are more maddening than scrolling to reach the bottom of another physician’s note only to find there is nothing there.

Whose fault is this? Anyone? Yes, that’s right, insurers. As there are probably no payers in this audience, let’s blame them. I agree, the crushing burden of documentation-to-get-reimbursed has forced us to create “notes” that add no value to us but add up points for us to get paid for them. CMS, payers, prior authorizations, and now even patients, it seems we are documenting for lots of people except for us. There isn’t time to satisfy all and this significant burden for every encounter is a proximate cause for doctors despair. Until now.

In 2024, came our story’s deus ex machina: the AI scribe. A tool that can listen to a doctor visit, then from the ether, generate a note. A fully formed, comprehensive, sometimes pretty note that satisfies all audiences. Dr. Larry Weed must be dancing in heaven. It was Dr. Weed who led us from the nicotine-stained logs of the 1950s to the powerful problem-based notes we use today, an innovation that rivals the stethoscope in its impact.

Professor Weed also predicted that computers would be important to capture and make sense of patient data, helping us make accurate diagnoses and efficient plans. Again, he was right. He would surely be advocating to take advantage of AI scribes’ marvelous ability to capture salient data and present it in the form of a problem-oriented medical record.

AI scribes will be ubiquitous soon; I’m fast and even for me they save time. They also allow, for the first time in a decade, to turn from the glow of a screen to actually face the patient – we no longer have to scribe and care simultaneously. Hallelujah. And yet, lest I disappoint you without a twist, it seems with AI scribes, like EMRs we lose a little something too.

Like self-driving cars or ChatGPT-generated letters, they remove cognitive loads. They are lovely when you have to multitask or are trying to recall a visit from hours (days) ago. Using them, you’ll feel faster, lighter, freer, happier. But what’s missing is the thinking. At the end, you have an exquisite note, but you didn’t write it. It has the salient points, but none of the mental work to create it. AI scribes subvert the valuable work of synthesis. That was the critical part of Dr. Weed’s discovery: writing problem-oriented notes helped us think better.

Kaiser Permanente

Writing allows for the friction that helps us process what is going on with a patient. It allows for the discovery of diagnoses and prompts plans. When I was an intern, one of my attendings would hand write notes, succinctly showing what he had observed and was thinking. He’d sketch diagrams in the chart, for example, to help illustrate how we’d work though the toxic, metabolic, and infectious etiologies of acute liver failure. Sublime.

The act of writing also helps remind us there is a person attached to these words. Like a handwritten sympathy card, it is intimate, human. Even using our EMR, I’d still often type sentences that help tell the patient’s story. “Her sister just died. Utterly devastated. I’ll forward chart to Bob (her PCP) to check in on her.” Or: “Scratch golfer wants to know why he is getting so many SCCs now. ‘Like bankruptcy, gradually then suddenly,’ I explained. I think I broke through.”

Since we’ve concluded the purpose of a note is mostly to capture data, AI scribes are a godsend. They do so with remarkable quality and efficiency. We’ll just have to remember if the diagnosis is unclear, then it might help to write the note out yourself. And even when done by the AI machine, we might add human touches now and again lest there be no art left in what we do.

“For sale. Sun hat. Never worn.”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].

“We really aren’t taking care of records — we’re taking care of people.” — Dr. Lawrence Weed

What is the purpose of a progress note? Anyone? Yes, you there. “Insurance billing?” Yes, that’s a good one. Anyone else? “To remember what you did?” Excellent. Another? Yes, that’s right, for others to follow along in your care. These are all good reasons for a progress note to exist. But they aren’t the whole story. Let’s start at the beginning.

Charts were once a collection of paper sheets with handwritten notes. Sometimes illegible, sometimes beautiful, always efficient. A progress note back then could be just 10 characters, AK, LN2, X,X,X,X,X (with X’s marking nitrogen sprays). Then came the healthcare K-Pg event: the conversion to EMRs. Those doctors who survived evolved into computer programmers, creating blocks of text from a few keystrokes. But like toddler-sized Legos, the blocks made it impossible to build a note that is nuanced or precise. Worse yet, many notes consisting of blocks from one note added awkwardly to a new note, creating grotesque structures unrecognizable as anything that should exist in nature. Words and numbers, but no information.

Newtown grafitti / flickr / CC BY-2.0

Thanks to the eternity of EMR, these creations live on, hideous and useless. They waste not only the server’s energy but also our time. Few things are more maddening than scrolling to reach the bottom of another physician’s note only to find there is nothing there.

Whose fault is this? Anyone? Yes, that’s right, insurers. As there are probably no payers in this audience, let’s blame them. I agree, the crushing burden of documentation-to-get-reimbursed has forced us to create “notes” that add no value to us but add up points for us to get paid for them. CMS, payers, prior authorizations, and now even patients, it seems we are documenting for lots of people except for us. There isn’t time to satisfy all and this significant burden for every encounter is a proximate cause for doctors despair. Until now.

In 2024, came our story’s deus ex machina: the AI scribe. A tool that can listen to a doctor visit, then from the ether, generate a note. A fully formed, comprehensive, sometimes pretty note that satisfies all audiences. Dr. Larry Weed must be dancing in heaven. It was Dr. Weed who led us from the nicotine-stained logs of the 1950s to the powerful problem-based notes we use today, an innovation that rivals the stethoscope in its impact.

Professor Weed also predicted that computers would be important to capture and make sense of patient data, helping us make accurate diagnoses and efficient plans. Again, he was right. He would surely be advocating to take advantage of AI scribes’ marvelous ability to capture salient data and present it in the form of a problem-oriented medical record.

AI scribes will be ubiquitous soon; I’m fast and even for me they save time. They also allow, for the first time in a decade, to turn from the glow of a screen to actually face the patient – we no longer have to scribe and care simultaneously. Hallelujah. And yet, lest I disappoint you without a twist, it seems with AI scribes, like EMRs we lose a little something too.

Like self-driving cars or ChatGPT-generated letters, they remove cognitive loads. They are lovely when you have to multitask or are trying to recall a visit from hours (days) ago. Using them, you’ll feel faster, lighter, freer, happier. But what’s missing is the thinking. At the end, you have an exquisite note, but you didn’t write it. It has the salient points, but none of the mental work to create it. AI scribes subvert the valuable work of synthesis. That was the critical part of Dr. Weed’s discovery: writing problem-oriented notes helped us think better.

Kaiser Permanente

Writing allows for the friction that helps us process what is going on with a patient. It allows for the discovery of diagnoses and prompts plans. When I was an intern, one of my attendings would hand write notes, succinctly showing what he had observed and was thinking. He’d sketch diagrams in the chart, for example, to help illustrate how we’d work though the toxic, metabolic, and infectious etiologies of acute liver failure. Sublime.

The act of writing also helps remind us there is a person attached to these words. Like a handwritten sympathy card, it is intimate, human. Even using our EMR, I’d still often type sentences that help tell the patient’s story. “Her sister just died. Utterly devastated. I’ll forward chart to Bob (her PCP) to check in on her.” Or: “Scratch golfer wants to know why he is getting so many SCCs now. ‘Like bankruptcy, gradually then suddenly,’ I explained. I think I broke through.”

Since we’ve concluded the purpose of a note is mostly to capture data, AI scribes are a godsend. They do so with remarkable quality and efficiency. We’ll just have to remember if the diagnosis is unclear, then it might help to write the note out yourself. And even when done by the AI machine, we might add human touches now and again lest there be no art left in what we do.

“For sale. Sun hat. Never worn.”

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on X. Write to him at [email protected].