Clinical Psychiatry News

By age 12 years, more than 14% of children have tried alcohol or tobacco, and religion, race, and income are the top predictors beginning to use these and other substances, new research suggests.

Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.

The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Critical Risk Factors

Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.

This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.

A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.

In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.

Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.

The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.

By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.

Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.

The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
 

Religious Predictors

The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).

The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).

The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.

It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.

Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).

Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).

Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).

The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
 

Shaping Future Prevention

Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.

Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”

The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.

Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).

“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”

She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older. 

The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By age 12 years, more than 14% of children have tried alcohol or tobacco, and religion, race, and income are the top predictors beginning to use these and other substances, new research suggests.

Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.

The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Critical Risk Factors

Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.

This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.

A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.

In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.

Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.

The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.

By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.

Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.

The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
 

Religious Predictors

The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).

The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).

The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.

It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.

Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).

Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).

Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).

The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
 

Shaping Future Prevention

Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.

Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”

The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.

Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).

“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”

She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older. 

The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

By age 12 years, more than 14% of children have tried alcohol or tobacco, and religion, race, and income are the top predictors beginning to use these and other substances, new research suggests.

Aside from sociodemographic parameters, risk factors for substance use initiation include prenatal exposure to substances, peer use of alcohol and nicotine, and problematic school behavior, among other things, the study showed.

The results show certain modifiable risk factors may play a role in preventing youth from starting to use substances, said study author ReJoyce Green, PhD, research assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston.

“If we’re designing, say, a prevention program or an early intervention program, these are things that could make a difference, so let’s make sure we’re bringing them into the conversation.”

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association American Psychiatric Association (APA) and published online in The American Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Critical Risk Factors

Use of alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis often begins during adolescence. One recent survey showed that 23% of 13-year-olds reported using alcohol, 17% reported vaping nicotine, and 8% reported vaping cannabis. Other research links younger age at substance use initiation to a more rapid transition to substance use disorders and higher rates of psychiatric disorders.

Previous studies examining predictors of substance use initiation in the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) Study dataset focused primarily on self-reported measures, but the current study also looked at models that include hormones and neurocognitive factors as well as neuroimaging.

This study included 6829, 9- and 10-year-olds from the ABCD Study who had never tried substances and were followed for 3 years.

A sophisticated statistical approach was used to examine 420 variables as predictors of substance use initiation. Initiation was defined as trying any nonprescribed substance by age 12 years. “That’s including a single sip of alcohol or puff of a cigarette,” said Dr. Green.

In addition to alcohol, nicotine, and cannabis, researchers looked at initiation of synthetic cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamine, and ketamine, among other substances.

Self-reported measures included demographic characteristics, self and peer involvement with substance use, parenting behaviors, mental and physical health, and culture and environmental factors.

The analytical approach used machine-learning algorithms to compare the ability of domains to identify the most critical risk factors. Magnitudes of coefficients were used to assess variable importance, with positive coefficients indicating greater likelihood of substance initiation and negative coefficients indicating lower likelihood of initiation.

By age 12 years, 14.4% of the children studied reported substance initiation. Alcohol was the substance most commonly initiated (365 individuals), followed by nicotine (94 individuals) and cannabis (40 individuals), with few or no children initiating other substances.

Both those who did and did not initiate substances were similarly aged, and most participants identified as White and non-Hispanic. But the substance-use group had a lower percentage of girls and higher percentage of White participants compared with the no-substance-use group.

The model with only self-reported data had similar accuracy in predicting substance use initiation (area under the curve [AUC], 0.67) as models that added resource-intensive measures such as neurocognitive tests and hormones (AUC, 0.67) and neuroimaging (AUC, 0.66).
 

Religious Predictors

The strongest predictors of substance use initiation were related to religion: Youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Mormonism were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.87), whereas youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Judaism were more likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.32).

The third top predictor was race: Black youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.32). This was followed by youths whose parents reported a religious preference for Islam who were also less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, -0.25).

The research examined over 15 different religious categories, “so we really tried to be expansive,” noted Dr. Green.

It’s unclear why some religions appeared to have a protective impact when it comes to substance use initiation whereas others have the opposite effect. Future research could perhaps identify which components of religiosity affect substance use initiation. If so, these aspects could be developed and incorporated into prevention and intervention programs, said Dr. Green.

Next on the list of most important predictors was being a part of a household with an income of $12,000-$15,999; these youths were less likely to initiate substance use (coefficient, 0.22).

Within the culture and environment domain, a history of detention or suspension was a top predictor of substance use initiation (coefficient, 0.20). Prenatal exposure to substance use was also a robust predictor in the physical health category (coefficient, 0.15).

Other predictors included: parents with less than a high school degree or GED (coefficient, -0.14), substance use availability (coefficient, 0.12), and age at baseline (coefficient, 0.12).

The study also showed that better cognitive functioning in selected domains (eg, cognitive control, attention, and language ability) is associated with a greater likelihood of substance use initiation.
 

Shaping Future Prevention

Applying these findings in clinical settings could help tailor prevention and early intervention efforts, said the authors. It might be prudent to allocate resources to collecting data related to self-, peer-, and familial-related factors, “which were more informative in predicting substance use initiation during late childhood and early adolescence in the present study,” they wrote.

Researchers will continue to track these children through to a 10-year follow-up, said Dr. Green. “I’m really curious to see if the factors we found when they were 12 and 13, such as those related to peers and family, still hold when they’re ages 17 and 18, because there’s going to be a huge amount of brain development that’s happening throughout this phase.”

The group that initiated substance use and the group that didn’t initiate substance use were not totally balanced, and sample sizes for some religious categories were small. Another study limitation was that the analytic approach didn’t account for multilevel data within the context of site and families.

Commenting on the findings, Kathleen Brady, MD, PhD, distinguished university professor and director, South Carolina Clinical and Translational Research Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, said that the study is “critical and complex.” This, she said, is especially true as cannabis has become more accessible and potent, and as the federal government reportedly considers reclassifying it from a Schedule I drug (which includes highly dangerous, addictive substances with no medical use) to a Schedule III drug (which can be prescribed as a medication).

“The part that is the most frightening to me is the long-lasting effects that can happen when young people start using high-potency marijuana at an early age,” said Dr. Brady. “So, any information that we can give to parents, to teachers, to the public, and to doctors is important.”

She’s looking forward to getting more “incredibly important” information on substance use initiation as the study progresses and the teens get older. 

The study received support from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Like it or not, artificial intelligence (AI) is coming to medicine. For many physicians — maybe you — it’s already here.

More than a third of physicians use AI in their practice. And the vast majority of healthcare companies — 94%, according to Morgan Stanley — use some kind of AI machine learning.

“It’s incumbent on physicians, as well as physicians in training, to become familiar with at least the basics [of AI],” said internist Matthew DeCamp, MD, PhD, an associate professor in the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado.

Understanding AI can help you leverage it safely and effectively — plus “make better-informed decisions about whether or not to use it in [your] practice,” Dr. DeCamp said.

“Frankly, the people who are deciding whether to implement algorithms in our day-to-day lives are oftentimes not physicians,” noted Ravi B. Parikh, MD, an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania and director of augmented and artificial intelligence at the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, Philadelphia. Yet, physicians are most qualified to assess an AI tool’s usefulness in clinical practice.

That brings us to the best starting place for your AI education: Your own institution. Find out what AI tools your organization is implementing — and how you can influence them.

“Getting involved with our hospital data governance is the best way not only to learn practically what these AI tools do but also to influence the development process in positive ways,” Dr. Parikh said.

From there, consider the following resources to enhance your AI knowledge.
 

Get a Lay of the Land: Free Primers

Many clinical societies and interest groups have put out AI primers, an easy way to get a broad overview of the technology. The following were recommended or developed by the experts we spoke to, and all are free:

• The American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) framework for advancing healthcare AI lays out actionable guidance. Ask three key questions, the AMA recommends: Does it work? Does it work for my patients? Does it improve health outcomes?
• The Coalition for Health AI’s Blueprint for Trustworthy AI Implementation Guidance and Assurance for Healthcare provides a high-level summary of how to evaluate AI in healthcare, plus steps for implementing it. AI systems should be useful, safe, accountable, explainable, fair, and secure, the report asserted.
• The National Academy of Medicine’s draft code of conduct for AI in healthcare proposes core principles and commitments. These “reflect simple guideposts to guide and gauge behavior in a complex system and provide a starting point for real-time decision-making,” the report said.
• Health AI Partnership — a collaboration of Duke Health and Microsoft — outlines eight key decision points to consider at any stage of AI implementation, whether you’re still planning how to use it or you’ve started but want to improve it. The site also provides a breakdown of standards by regulatory agencies, organizations, and oversight bodies — so you can make sure your practices align with their guidance.

Make the Most of Conferences

Next time you’re at a conference, check the agenda for sessions on AI. “For someone who’s interested in this, I would be looking for content in my next national meeting because, undoubtedly, it’s going to be there,” said Dr. DeCamp. In a fast-moving field like AI, it’s a great way to get fresh, up-to-the-moment insights.

Listen to This Podcast

The New England Journal of Medicine’s free monthly podcast AI Grand Rounds is made for researchers and clinicians. Available on Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, the pod is good for “someone who’s looking to see both where the field is going [and to hear] a retrospective on big-name papers,” said Dr. Parikh . Episodes run for about an hour.

To learn about the challenges of applying AI to biology: Listen to Daphne Koller, PhD, founder of AI-driven drug discovery and development company insitro. For insights on the potential of AI in medicine, tune into the one with Eric Horvitz, MD, PhD, Microsoft’s chief scientific officer.
 

Consider a Class

Look for courses that focus on AI applications in clinical practice rather than a deep dive into theory. (You need to understand how these tools will influence your work, not the intricacies of large language model development.) Be wary of corporate-funded training that centers on one product , which could present conflicts of interest, said Dr. DeCamp. See the chart for courses that meet these criteria.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A plastic surgeon broke federal law when he restricted patients from posting negative reviews by requiring them to sign nondisclosure agreements before they received care, a district judge has ruled.

Seattle-based surgeon Javad Sajan, MD, ran afoul of the Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA) by requiring more than 10,000 patients to sign the agreements, according to a recent decision by US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. The law protects consumers’ rights to post truthful reviews about businesses. 

Judge Martinez wrote that the terms of Dr. Sajan’s nondisclosure agreements “clearly include language prohibiting or restricting patients from posting negative reviews,” in violation of CRFA. Penalties for the offense will be determined at a September trial. 

This news organization contacted Dr. Sajan’s office and his attorney for comment but did not get a response. 

The decision is the latest development in an ongoing legal dispute between Dr. Sajan and the State of Washington over whether the surgeon’s efforts to limit negative online reviews were illegal. 

Beginning in 2017, Dr. Sajan and his practice, Allure Esthetic, introduced agreements that “forced” patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review, according to a 2022 lawsuit against Dr. Sajan filed by Washington Attorney General Robert Ferguson. 

“Online reviews are often the first stop when consumers are determining who to trust,” Mr. Ferguson said in a statement. “That’s especially critical when those services deal with a patient’s health and safety. We will take action against those who illegally stop Washingtonians from sharing reviews with the public.”

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the complaint. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents. 

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys argued the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them, which hundreds did. The CRFA requires Mr. Ferguson to prove that consumers lacked a meaningful opportunity to negotiate the terms, attorneys for Dr. Sajan argued in court records. 

But Judge Martinez wrote that the patients who declined to sign the agreements or changed the terms represented only a “tiny fraction” of the affected patients.

The agreement language restricts patients from speaking out by forcing dissatisfied patients to work with Allure until a resolution is reached, Judge Martinez noted in his decision. “At the very least, this would delay patients from posting such reviews and force patients to interact in some way with Allure, and it certainly appears to prohibit posting reviews until Allure agrees to some kind of favorable resolution.”
 

Surgeon Posted Fake Positive Reviews to Counteract Bad Reviews, AG Says

Employee accounts in court documents describe a physician fixated on reviews who went to great lengths to ensure positive reviews about his work outweighed the negative. 

Former employees said they were instructed to track down patients who left negative reviews and either “threaten” them to take the posts down or offer them “money” or other things, according to Mr. Ferguson’s lawsuit. If patients could not be identified, the practice would file a defamation lawsuit against the anonymous person who posted the review and use litigation to subpoena the website for the reviewer’s IP address in order to identify them, according to court documents. 

Employees testified they had regular meetings to review current negative reviews and discuss what steps they were taking to get them removed. At team meetings, in-house counsel would regularly present an Excel spreadsheet with updates on progress in getting patients to remove negative reviews, according to court documents. 

In addition to restricting negative reviews, Mr. Ferguson accuses Dr. Sajan of posting fake positive reviews and “buying” thousands of fake followers on social media. 

At Dr. Sajan’s direction, employees created Gmail accounts using stock photos for their profile pictures and used the accounts to post fake reviews of Allure Esthetic and Dr. Sajan, according to the complaint. The practice also used members of an online forum called BlackHatWorld.com to create fake email accounts and to post fake reviews, the attorney general alleges. Many of the fake positive reviews, including the fake Google reviews, still appear on online review sites today, the attorney general contends. 

Dr. Sajan and his practice also allegedly manipulated social media to appear more popular. Mr. Ferguson claims that Dr. Sajan instructed his former web designer to purchase 60,000 followers through a vendor on BlackHatWorld.com. Most of Dr. Sajan’s current Instagram followers are not real, according to Mr. Ferguson. 

The practice also used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media, according to court documents. 

In addition, Dr. Sajan and his practice are accused of significantly altering “before and after” photos of patients and using fake email accounts to allow the clinic to take skincare rebates intended for patients.

All of these practices violated HIPAA, the state Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and the federal CRFA, according to Mr. Ferguson. 
 

Surgeon Claims Competitor Behind Allegations 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan argue a competitor is behind the accusations and that other regulatory entities determined the practice did nothing wrong. 

The competitor, a Seattle-based plastic surgeon, filed numerous complaints about Dr. Sajan to the Washington Medical Commission (WMC), according to court documents. The medical commission reviewed the third agreement and closed its investigation, finding that if the allegations were true, “no violation of law occurred,” court records show. 

“Defendants relied upon this closing code from the WMC that the (non-disclosure) forms were lawful,” Dr. Sajan’s attorneys wrote in court documents.

The US Department of Health & Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also reviewed and audited Dr. Sajan’s use of the agreements, his attorneys noted. In a notice from OCR included in court exhibits, the agency wrote that all matters at issue have now been resolved through the practice’s voluntary compliance actions and that it was closing its investigation. 

Attorneys for Dr. Sajan accuse Mr. Ferguson and state investigators of withholding the full extent of the competitor’s involvement in their investigation and failing to identify the competitor in written discovery or any of its initial disclosures. Dr. Sajan and his team discovered that the competitor was a source of key information through public records requests, according to court documents. 

The remaining claims against Dr. Sajan will be addressed at trial, set for September 9, 2024. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health distress increased disproportionately among transgender and gender-nonconforming US adults between 2014 and 2021 compared with their cisgender counterparts, a new study suggested. Investigators said the findings among an historically marginalized segment of society point to a need to address a growing inequality in mental health.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators drew on 2014-2021 US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) survey data, using logistic and ordinary least squares regression to document temporal trends in the transgender-cisgender disparity in self-reports of the number of poor mental health days in the past month and frequent mental distress.
• They included 43 states that implemented the optional sexual orientation and gender identity module in the BRFSS.
• Outcomes included the number of poor mental health days in the past month, as well as frequent mental distress (≥ 14 poor mental health days in the past month).

TAKEAWAY:

• Even in 2014, there was a discrepancy between cisgender and transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals in the reported mean of poor mental health days (3.68 vs 5.42).
• The size of this disparity, adjusted by differences in observable characteristics, increased by 2.75 days (95% CI, 0.58-4.91) over the study period.
• The inequality in mental health status between cisgender and transgender and nonconforming adults grew from 11.4% vs 18.9% in 2014, respectively, to 14.6% vs 32.9% in 2021, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings demonstrate sizable and worsening inequities in mental health across gender identity,” the authors wrote. “Mental health and primary care providers must be prepared to address the unique psychosocial needs of gender minority adults. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for action to reduce these disparities.”

SOURCE:

Samuel Mann, PhD, of the RAND Corporation, was the corresponding author of the study. It was published online on April 10 in the American Journal of Public Health.

LIMITATIONS:

Measures of mental health were derived from self-reports. In addition, data from seven states were missing because these states did not include sexual orientation and gender identity in the BRFSS. And the BRFSS does not survey people who are unhoused, incarcerated, or in group living quarters.

DISCLOSURES:

No source of study funding was listed. The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

Deaths of despair — defined as midlife deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease — among African Americans surpassed the rate in White Americans in 2022, new research showed. In addition, the study also revealed that Native Americans had more than double the rate of both their Black and White counterparts that year.

These new findings, the investigators noted, counter a nearly 10-year-old narrative that was sparked by a seminal 2015 study. It showed that from 1999 to 2013 deaths of despair predominantly affected White individuals at a rate of 72.15 per 100,000 population — twice that of Black Americans.

The investigators of the 2015 study posited that such deaths in the group were linked to declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status especially in White individuals without a college degree. However, the investigators noted that data for Native Americans were not included in the 2015 study or in the many follow-up analyses the research triggered.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

Racial Differences

The current investigators assessed trends by race and ethnicity in deaths of despair in the years following the 2015 study when an increase in racial and ethnic inequality were reported for numerous causes of death.

The cross-sectional study used publicly available records from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention database WONDER to calculate midlife mortality in the United States from January 1999 to December 2022 to determine deaths from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease for White, Black, and Native American individuals aged 45-55 years. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.

Results showed that deaths of despair in Black Americans (103.81 per 100,000) surpassed that of White Americans (102.63 per 100,000) in 2022. Furthermore, the rate in Black Americans tripled from 2013 to 2022 (from 36.24 to 103.81 per 100,000), with a sharp increase in such deaths from 2015 onward.

The rate for Native American and Alaska Native populations was the highest at 241.7 per 100,000 population in 2022.

It has been posited that the increase in rates of deaths of despair among White people is associated with declining social and economic conditions and a perceived loss of status, especially among White individuals without a college degree, the authors noted. 

The initial seminal study became a focus of ongoing national discourse after results showed White individuals had the highest mortality rates from these causes at 72 per 100,000 people in 2013 — twice that of Black Americans.

They examined midlife mortality from suicide, drug overdose, and alcoholic liver disease between January 1999 and December 2022. The data were then analyzed by race and ethnicity.
 

The rate of midlife deaths from alcoholic liver disease among American Indian or Alaska Native individuals (109 per 100,000) was six times the rate of White individuals (18 per 100,000) in 2022. 

Rates of midlife suicide deaths in 2022 remained elevated among Native American or Alaska Native (28 per 100,000) and White (25 per 100,000) individuals compared with Black individuals (9 per 100,000).

Increases in deaths of despair among Black and Native Americans are associated with differential access to safety resources in the context of an increasingly toxic illicit drug supply, increased rates of polysubstance use, worsening economic precarity, and stark disparities in access to mental health and substance use treatment programs, the investigators noted.

“The findings reinforce the notion that we need to invest in services that can address these issues, and ultimately, we need much more comprehensive access to low-barrier mental health care and substance use treatment in the US,” study investigator Joseph Friedman, PhD, of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, said in a press release. 

“We need to specifically make sure those treatments, services, and programs are implemented in a way that is accessible for communities of color and will actively work to address inequality,” Dr. Friedman added.

Potential study limitations include possible misclassification of race and ethnicity, which could underestimate observed inequalities, and the ecological design that precludes measuring causality of underlying factors, the researchers noted.

The investigators reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

Having two copies of the APOE4 gene may be the genetic cause of up to one fifth of all Alzheimer’s disease cases, a new study suggests.

More than 95% of those with two copies of the gene (APOE4 homozygotes) in a large multicohort study had higher levels of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers by age 55 years than did those with other APOE gene variants. By age 65 years, most had developed Alzheimer’s disease symptoms and showed abnormal amyloid levels in cerebrospinal fluid and on PET.

Investigators said that such a high penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in this group suggests that APOE4 may not be just a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease but also a distinct genetic form of the disease. 

“Sometimes, we say we don’t know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, but this would be behind 15%-20% of the population of people with Alzheimer’s disease,” lead investigator Juan Fortea, MD, PhD, director of the Memory Unit of the Neurology Department at the Hospital of Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, said at a press briefing.

Although some experts urge caution in interpreting these results, investigators and others say the findings, published online in Nature Medicine, could lead to calls for more widespread testing for APOE4 and may spur drug development.
 

High AD Penetrance

Mutations in the APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 genes are linked to risk for early-onset autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease, and dozens of other genes are associated with greater odds of late-onset disease. Among all these genes, APOE is considered the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. 

Prior studies found that APOE4 homozygotes have a 60% lifetime risk for Alzheimer’s disease by age 85 years, a risk higher than that found with other gene variants or in single APOE carriers or noncarriers. 

Despite that, no previous study had examined the predictability of symptom onset in APOE4 homozygotes, which make up about 2%-3% of the general population and 15-20% of those with Alzheimer’s disease. And because most biomarker studies have combined single- and double-carrier APOE4 carriers into one group, very little was known about the penetrance or disease progression in APOE4 homozygotes.

Investigators analyzed data from 3200 brain donors from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center and more than 10,000 people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers from five multicenter cohorts in the United States and Europe.

Nearly all APOE4 homozygotes had either high or intermediate Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change scores compared with about 50% among APOE3 homozygotes and was the same regardless of age at time of death. 

Beginning at age 55 years, APOE4 homozygotes exhibited higher levels of abnormal Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers than did APOE3 homozygotes. By age 65 years, nearly everyone with two copies of APOE4 showed abnormal levels of amyloid in cerebrospinal fluid and 75% had positive amyloid scans. 

Other biomarkers showed a biologic penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease that increased with age. By age 80 years, penetrance for all amyloid and tau biomarkers reached 88%. 

Postmortem analysis revealed Alzheimer’s disease and dementia symptoms were evident in APOE4 homozygotes 7-10 years before APOE3 homozygotes, with Alzheimer’s disease symptoms present at age 65 years, minor cognitive impairment at 72 years, dementia at 74 years, and death at 77 years (P <.05 differences).

When they limited analysis to only those who developed Alzheimer’s disease dementia, investigators found no difference in amyloid or tau accumulation between APOE3 and APOE4 homozygotes. That was surprising given the much earlier presentation of clinical symptoms and biomarkers in those who carried two copies of APOE4.
 

More Than a Risk Factor

Overall, study findings provide evidence that APOE4 homozygotes represent another form of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, similar to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease and down syndrome-associated Alzheimer’s disease, investigators said.

“Our work showed that APOE4 homozygotes meet the three main characteristics of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, namely near-full penetrance, symptom onset predictability and a predictable sequence of biomarker and clinical changes,” they wrote. 

Based on the results, investigators recommend that future clinical trials avoid combining single and double APOE4 carriers into one study group. 

Because the global average proportion of APOE4 homozygotes is estimated to be approximately 2%, APOE4-homozygous Alzheimer’s disease may represent one of the most frequently occurring Mendelian diseases worldwide. This could have implications for genetic counseling and genetic screening recommendations, they said. 

“We may need to start treating these homozygotes as a separate group in our research so we can really understand the relation between amyloid and tau and symptoms in E4 homozygotes in a way that we have not been able to because of our practice in the field of thinking that APOE4 is this unitary risk effect,” co-investigator Sterling Johnson, PhD, professor of geriatrics and dementia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said at a press briefing.

The findings may also have implications for Alzheimer’s disease prevention, investigators added.

“What’s particularly important is the promise that perhaps we could treat people before symptoms, particularly in people who already have the disease in their brain such as APOE4 homozygotes, which reliably predicts that they will have impairment and try to treat them beforehand,” co-investigator Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women›s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at a press briefing. 

“This is important for preventing Alzheimer’s-related dementia and a real movement forward in defining the disease on the basis of genetics and biomarkers,” she added. 
 

Experts Offer Mixed Reactions

Commenting on the findings, Paul Mathews, MD, DPhil, group leader of the UK Dementia Research Institute Centre at Imperial College, said that the data point to a need to look at APOE4 differently. 

“One implication of this work is that testing for APOE4 gene homozygosity should be assessed for use clinically, when late middle-aged people present to their doctors with symptoms of dementia,” Dr. Mathews, who was not part of the study, said in a statement. 

In an accompany editorial, Yadong Huang, MD, PhD, Departments of Neurology and Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, and co-authors noted that the findings also have implications for clinical drug trials.

“So far, APOE4 homozygotes have not been treated as a separate predefined treatment group in clinical trials,” they wrote. “Following this study, APOE4 status must be recognized as a crucial parameter in trial design, patient recruitment and data analysis, with APOE4 homozygotes and heterozygotes being clearly separated. Such an approach may enhance the treatment efficacy and help tailor therapeutic interventions more effectively towards genetically defined patient populations.”

Other experts urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

“It is clear that APOE4 homozygosity is tightly linked to the appearance of Alzheimer’s-related pathology, but even at age 80, 12% of people with APOE4/E4 did not have amyloid/tau biomarkers,” said Yuko Hara, PhD, director of aging and Alzheimer’s disease prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. “Also, having two copies of APOE4 does not mean you will definitely develop symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in your lifetime,” Dr. Hara added. 

Researchers have long known that APOE4 is a strong risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and that people with two copies of the gene are at especially high risk, David Curtis, MD, PhD, Genetics Institute at University of College London, England, said in a statement.

“I do not see anything in this paper to justify the claim that carrying two copies of APOE4 represents some ‘distinct genetic form’ of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Curtis said. “No matter how many alleles of APOE4 one carries, the underlying disease processes seem similar across cases of Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that any effective treatment and prevention strategies, which have yet to be developed would have broad applicability.” 

Study funders included Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitario, Carlos III Health Institute, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Unión Europea, National Institutes of Health, the Department de Salut de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Horizon 2020–Research and Innovation Framework Programme from the European Union, La Caixa Foundation, EIT Digital, and the Alzheimer Association. Dr. Fortea reported receiving personal fees for service on the advisory boards, adjudication committees or speaker honoraria from AC Immune, Adamed, Alzheon, Biogen, Eisai, Esteve, Fujirebio, Ionis, Laboratorios Carnot, Life Molecular Imaging, Lilly, Lundbeck, Perha, Roche, and outside the submitted work. Dr. Johnson has served at scientific advisory boards for ALZPath, Enigma and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sperling has received personal consulting fees from AbbVie, AC Immune, Acumen, Alector, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Genentech, Ionis and Vaxxinity outside the submitted work. Dr. Huang is a co-founder and scientific advisory board member of GABAeron, Inc. Dr. Mathews reports consultancies with Sudo Biosciences, Nimbus, Redburn. Dr. Hara and Dr. Curtis reported no conflicts. Complete funding sources and disclosures are included in the original articles. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Having two copies of the APOE4 gene may be the genetic cause of up to one fifth of all Alzheimer’s disease cases, a new study suggests.

More than 95% of those with two copies of the gene (APOE4 homozygotes) in a large multicohort study had higher levels of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers by age 55 years than did those with other APOE gene variants. By age 65 years, most had developed Alzheimer’s disease symptoms and showed abnormal amyloid levels in cerebrospinal fluid and on PET.

Investigators said that such a high penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in this group suggests that APOE4 may not be just a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease but also a distinct genetic form of the disease. 

“Sometimes, we say we don’t know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, but this would be behind 15%-20% of the population of people with Alzheimer’s disease,” lead investigator Juan Fortea, MD, PhD, director of the Memory Unit of the Neurology Department at the Hospital of Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, said at a press briefing.

Although some experts urge caution in interpreting these results, investigators and others say the findings, published online in Nature Medicine, could lead to calls for more widespread testing for APOE4 and may spur drug development.
 

High AD Penetrance

Mutations in the APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 genes are linked to risk for early-onset autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease, and dozens of other genes are associated with greater odds of late-onset disease. Among all these genes, APOE is considered the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. 

Prior studies found that APOE4 homozygotes have a 60% lifetime risk for Alzheimer’s disease by age 85 years, a risk higher than that found with other gene variants or in single APOE carriers or noncarriers. 

Despite that, no previous study had examined the predictability of symptom onset in APOE4 homozygotes, which make up about 2%-3% of the general population and 15-20% of those with Alzheimer’s disease. And because most biomarker studies have combined single- and double-carrier APOE4 carriers into one group, very little was known about the penetrance or disease progression in APOE4 homozygotes.

Investigators analyzed data from 3200 brain donors from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center and more than 10,000 people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers from five multicenter cohorts in the United States and Europe.

Nearly all APOE4 homozygotes had either high or intermediate Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change scores compared with about 50% among APOE3 homozygotes and was the same regardless of age at time of death. 

Beginning at age 55 years, APOE4 homozygotes exhibited higher levels of abnormal Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers than did APOE3 homozygotes. By age 65 years, nearly everyone with two copies of APOE4 showed abnormal levels of amyloid in cerebrospinal fluid and 75% had positive amyloid scans. 

Other biomarkers showed a biologic penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease that increased with age. By age 80 years, penetrance for all amyloid and tau biomarkers reached 88%. 

Postmortem analysis revealed Alzheimer’s disease and dementia symptoms were evident in APOE4 homozygotes 7-10 years before APOE3 homozygotes, with Alzheimer’s disease symptoms present at age 65 years, minor cognitive impairment at 72 years, dementia at 74 years, and death at 77 years (P <.05 differences).

When they limited analysis to only those who developed Alzheimer’s disease dementia, investigators found no difference in amyloid or tau accumulation between APOE3 and APOE4 homozygotes. That was surprising given the much earlier presentation of clinical symptoms and biomarkers in those who carried two copies of APOE4.
 

More Than a Risk Factor

Overall, study findings provide evidence that APOE4 homozygotes represent another form of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, similar to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease and down syndrome-associated Alzheimer’s disease, investigators said.

“Our work showed that APOE4 homozygotes meet the three main characteristics of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, namely near-full penetrance, symptom onset predictability and a predictable sequence of biomarker and clinical changes,” they wrote. 

Based on the results, investigators recommend that future clinical trials avoid combining single and double APOE4 carriers into one study group. 

Because the global average proportion of APOE4 homozygotes is estimated to be approximately 2%, APOE4-homozygous Alzheimer’s disease may represent one of the most frequently occurring Mendelian diseases worldwide. This could have implications for genetic counseling and genetic screening recommendations, they said. 

“We may need to start treating these homozygotes as a separate group in our research so we can really understand the relation between amyloid and tau and symptoms in E4 homozygotes in a way that we have not been able to because of our practice in the field of thinking that APOE4 is this unitary risk effect,” co-investigator Sterling Johnson, PhD, professor of geriatrics and dementia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said at a press briefing.

The findings may also have implications for Alzheimer’s disease prevention, investigators added.

“What’s particularly important is the promise that perhaps we could treat people before symptoms, particularly in people who already have the disease in their brain such as APOE4 homozygotes, which reliably predicts that they will have impairment and try to treat them beforehand,” co-investigator Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women›s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at a press briefing. 

“This is important for preventing Alzheimer’s-related dementia and a real movement forward in defining the disease on the basis of genetics and biomarkers,” she added. 
 

Experts Offer Mixed Reactions

Commenting on the findings, Paul Mathews, MD, DPhil, group leader of the UK Dementia Research Institute Centre at Imperial College, said that the data point to a need to look at APOE4 differently. 

“One implication of this work is that testing for APOE4 gene homozygosity should be assessed for use clinically, when late middle-aged people present to their doctors with symptoms of dementia,” Dr. Mathews, who was not part of the study, said in a statement. 

In an accompany editorial, Yadong Huang, MD, PhD, Departments of Neurology and Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, and co-authors noted that the findings also have implications for clinical drug trials.

“So far, APOE4 homozygotes have not been treated as a separate predefined treatment group in clinical trials,” they wrote. “Following this study, APOE4 status must be recognized as a crucial parameter in trial design, patient recruitment and data analysis, with APOE4 homozygotes and heterozygotes being clearly separated. Such an approach may enhance the treatment efficacy and help tailor therapeutic interventions more effectively towards genetically defined patient populations.”

Other experts urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

“It is clear that APOE4 homozygosity is tightly linked to the appearance of Alzheimer’s-related pathology, but even at age 80, 12% of people with APOE4/E4 did not have amyloid/tau biomarkers,” said Yuko Hara, PhD, director of aging and Alzheimer’s disease prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. “Also, having two copies of APOE4 does not mean you will definitely develop symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in your lifetime,” Dr. Hara added. 

Researchers have long known that APOE4 is a strong risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and that people with two copies of the gene are at especially high risk, David Curtis, MD, PhD, Genetics Institute at University of College London, England, said in a statement.

“I do not see anything in this paper to justify the claim that carrying two copies of APOE4 represents some ‘distinct genetic form’ of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Curtis said. “No matter how many alleles of APOE4 one carries, the underlying disease processes seem similar across cases of Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that any effective treatment and prevention strategies, which have yet to be developed would have broad applicability.” 

Study funders included Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitario, Carlos III Health Institute, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Unión Europea, National Institutes of Health, the Department de Salut de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Horizon 2020–Research and Innovation Framework Programme from the European Union, La Caixa Foundation, EIT Digital, and the Alzheimer Association. Dr. Fortea reported receiving personal fees for service on the advisory boards, adjudication committees or speaker honoraria from AC Immune, Adamed, Alzheon, Biogen, Eisai, Esteve, Fujirebio, Ionis, Laboratorios Carnot, Life Molecular Imaging, Lilly, Lundbeck, Perha, Roche, and outside the submitted work. Dr. Johnson has served at scientific advisory boards for ALZPath, Enigma and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sperling has received personal consulting fees from AbbVie, AC Immune, Acumen, Alector, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Genentech, Ionis and Vaxxinity outside the submitted work. Dr. Huang is a co-founder and scientific advisory board member of GABAeron, Inc. Dr. Mathews reports consultancies with Sudo Biosciences, Nimbus, Redburn. Dr. Hara and Dr. Curtis reported no conflicts. Complete funding sources and disclosures are included in the original articles. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Having two copies of the APOE4 gene may be the genetic cause of up to one fifth of all Alzheimer’s disease cases, a new study suggests.

More than 95% of those with two copies of the gene (APOE4 homozygotes) in a large multicohort study had higher levels of Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers by age 55 years than did those with other APOE gene variants. By age 65 years, most had developed Alzheimer’s disease symptoms and showed abnormal amyloid levels in cerebrospinal fluid and on PET.

Investigators said that such a high penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease pathology in this group suggests that APOE4 may not be just a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease but also a distinct genetic form of the disease. 

“Sometimes, we say we don’t know the cause of Alzheimer’s disease, but this would be behind 15%-20% of the population of people with Alzheimer’s disease,” lead investigator Juan Fortea, MD, PhD, director of the Memory Unit of the Neurology Department at the Hospital of Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain, said at a press briefing.

Although some experts urge caution in interpreting these results, investigators and others say the findings, published online in Nature Medicine, could lead to calls for more widespread testing for APOE4 and may spur drug development.
 

High AD Penetrance

Mutations in the APP, PSEN1, and PSEN2 genes are linked to risk for early-onset autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease, and dozens of other genes are associated with greater odds of late-onset disease. Among all these genes, APOE is considered the strongest genetic risk factor for late-onset Alzheimer’s disease. 

Prior studies found that APOE4 homozygotes have a 60% lifetime risk for Alzheimer’s disease by age 85 years, a risk higher than that found with other gene variants or in single APOE carriers or noncarriers. 

Despite that, no previous study had examined the predictability of symptom onset in APOE4 homozygotes, which make up about 2%-3% of the general population and 15-20% of those with Alzheimer’s disease. And because most biomarker studies have combined single- and double-carrier APOE4 carriers into one group, very little was known about the penetrance or disease progression in APOE4 homozygotes.

Investigators analyzed data from 3200 brain donors from the National Alzheimer’s Coordinating Center and more than 10,000 people with Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers from five multicenter cohorts in the United States and Europe.

Nearly all APOE4 homozygotes had either high or intermediate Alzheimer’s disease neuropathologic change scores compared with about 50% among APOE3 homozygotes and was the same regardless of age at time of death. 

Beginning at age 55 years, APOE4 homozygotes exhibited higher levels of abnormal Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers than did APOE3 homozygotes. By age 65 years, nearly everyone with two copies of APOE4 showed abnormal levels of amyloid in cerebrospinal fluid and 75% had positive amyloid scans. 

Other biomarkers showed a biologic penetrance of Alzheimer’s disease that increased with age. By age 80 years, penetrance for all amyloid and tau biomarkers reached 88%. 

Postmortem analysis revealed Alzheimer’s disease and dementia symptoms were evident in APOE4 homozygotes 7-10 years before APOE3 homozygotes, with Alzheimer’s disease symptoms present at age 65 years, minor cognitive impairment at 72 years, dementia at 74 years, and death at 77 years (P <.05 differences).

When they limited analysis to only those who developed Alzheimer’s disease dementia, investigators found no difference in amyloid or tau accumulation between APOE3 and APOE4 homozygotes. That was surprising given the much earlier presentation of clinical symptoms and biomarkers in those who carried two copies of APOE4.
 

More Than a Risk Factor

Overall, study findings provide evidence that APOE4 homozygotes represent another form of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, similar to autosomal-dominant Alzheimer’s disease and down syndrome-associated Alzheimer’s disease, investigators said.

“Our work showed that APOE4 homozygotes meet the three main characteristics of genetically determined Alzheimer’s disease, namely near-full penetrance, symptom onset predictability and a predictable sequence of biomarker and clinical changes,” they wrote. 

Based on the results, investigators recommend that future clinical trials avoid combining single and double APOE4 carriers into one study group. 

Because the global average proportion of APOE4 homozygotes is estimated to be approximately 2%, APOE4-homozygous Alzheimer’s disease may represent one of the most frequently occurring Mendelian diseases worldwide. This could have implications for genetic counseling and genetic screening recommendations, they said. 

“We may need to start treating these homozygotes as a separate group in our research so we can really understand the relation between amyloid and tau and symptoms in E4 homozygotes in a way that we have not been able to because of our practice in the field of thinking that APOE4 is this unitary risk effect,” co-investigator Sterling Johnson, PhD, professor of geriatrics and dementia, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said at a press briefing.

The findings may also have implications for Alzheimer’s disease prevention, investigators added.

“What’s particularly important is the promise that perhaps we could treat people before symptoms, particularly in people who already have the disease in their brain such as APOE4 homozygotes, which reliably predicts that they will have impairment and try to treat them beforehand,” co-investigator Reisa Sperling, MD, director of the Center for Alzheimer Research and Treatment at Brigham and Women›s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said at a press briefing. 

“This is important for preventing Alzheimer’s-related dementia and a real movement forward in defining the disease on the basis of genetics and biomarkers,” she added. 
 

Experts Offer Mixed Reactions

Commenting on the findings, Paul Mathews, MD, DPhil, group leader of the UK Dementia Research Institute Centre at Imperial College, said that the data point to a need to look at APOE4 differently. 

“One implication of this work is that testing for APOE4 gene homozygosity should be assessed for use clinically, when late middle-aged people present to their doctors with symptoms of dementia,” Dr. Mathews, who was not part of the study, said in a statement. 

In an accompany editorial, Yadong Huang, MD, PhD, Departments of Neurology and Pathology, University of California, San Francisco, and co-authors noted that the findings also have implications for clinical drug trials.

“So far, APOE4 homozygotes have not been treated as a separate predefined treatment group in clinical trials,” they wrote. “Following this study, APOE4 status must be recognized as a crucial parameter in trial design, patient recruitment and data analysis, with APOE4 homozygotes and heterozygotes being clearly separated. Such an approach may enhance the treatment efficacy and help tailor therapeutic interventions more effectively towards genetically defined patient populations.”

Other experts urge caution when interpreting the findings. 

“It is clear that APOE4 homozygosity is tightly linked to the appearance of Alzheimer’s-related pathology, but even at age 80, 12% of people with APOE4/E4 did not have amyloid/tau biomarkers,” said Yuko Hara, PhD, director of aging and Alzheimer’s disease prevention at the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation. “Also, having two copies of APOE4 does not mean you will definitely develop symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease in your lifetime,” Dr. Hara added. 

Researchers have long known that APOE4 is a strong risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease and that people with two copies of the gene are at especially high risk, David Curtis, MD, PhD, Genetics Institute at University of College London, England, said in a statement.

“I do not see anything in this paper to justify the claim that carrying two copies of APOE4 represents some ‘distinct genetic form’ of Alzheimer’s disease,” Dr. Curtis said. “No matter how many alleles of APOE4 one carries, the underlying disease processes seem similar across cases of Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting that any effective treatment and prevention strategies, which have yet to be developed would have broad applicability.” 

Study funders included Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitario, Carlos III Health Institute, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional, Unión Europea, National Institutes of Health, the Department de Salut de la Generalitat de Catalunya, Horizon 2020–Research and Innovation Framework Programme from the European Union, La Caixa Foundation, EIT Digital, and the Alzheimer Association. Dr. Fortea reported receiving personal fees for service on the advisory boards, adjudication committees or speaker honoraria from AC Immune, Adamed, Alzheon, Biogen, Eisai, Esteve, Fujirebio, Ionis, Laboratorios Carnot, Life Molecular Imaging, Lilly, Lundbeck, Perha, Roche, and outside the submitted work. Dr. Johnson has served at scientific advisory boards for ALZPath, Enigma and Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Sperling has received personal consulting fees from AbbVie, AC Immune, Acumen, Alector, Bristol Myers Squibb, Janssen, Genentech, Ionis and Vaxxinity outside the submitted work. Dr. Huang is a co-founder and scientific advisory board member of GABAeron, Inc. Dr. Mathews reports consultancies with Sudo Biosciences, Nimbus, Redburn. Dr. Hara and Dr. Curtis reported no conflicts. Complete funding sources and disclosures are included in the original articles. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High olive oil consumption is associated with a significant decreased risk for dementia-related mortality, regardless of overall diet quality, a new study suggested.

Data from a prospective study of more than 92,000 people showed consuming at least 7 g of olive oil a day — about half a tablespoon — was associated with a 28% lower risk for dementia-related death.

Replacing one teaspoon of margarine and mayonnaise with the equivalent amount of olive oil was associated with an 8%-14% lower risk for dementia-related mortality.

“Opting for olive oil, a natural product, instead of more processed fats such as margarine and mayonnaise, is a safe choice and may reduce risk of fatal dementia,” said lead investigator Anne-Julie Tessier, RD, PhD, research associate, Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

However, “intervention studies are needed to confirm causal effect and optimal quantity of olive oil intake,” she added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Spoonful of Olive Oil

A growing body of evidence has shown a link between the Mediterranean diet and preserved cognitive function and lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). But its association with dementia mortality was unknown.

Investigators analyzed data on over 92,000 participants (66% women; mean age, 56 years) in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) who were free of CVD and cancer at baseline.

Both studies were conducted between 1990 and 2018, with olive oil intake assessed every 4 years using a food frequency questionnaire. Dementia-related mortality was ascertained from death records.

The researchers also evaluated the joint association of diet quality (particularly adherence to the Mediterranean diet and Alternative Healthy Eating Index score) and olive oil consumption with the risk for dementia-related mortality. And they estimated the difference in the risk for dementia-related mortality when other dietary fats were substituted with an equivalent amount of olive oil.

There were 4751 dementia-related deaths during the 28-year follow-up period. People with two copies of the apolipoprotein epsilon-4 (APOE epsilon-4) allele — a known risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease — had a fivefold to ninefold greater likelihood of dementia-related death.

Compared with no or rare olive oil intake, consumption of 7 g of olive oil or more per day was associated with a 28% lower risk for dementia-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P < .001), after adjusting for lifestyle and socioeconomic factors. The finding remained consistent even with further adjustment for the APOE epsilon-4 allele.

Each 5-g increment in olive oil consumption had an inverse association with dementia-related death in women (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93) but not in men (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04).

No interaction by diet quality scores was found.
 

No Link With Diet Quality

“Typically, people who use olive oil for cooking or as a dressing have an overall better quality of their diet, but interestingly, we found the association between more olive oil and reduced risk of dementia-related death to be regardless of this factor,” Dr. Tessier said.

Replacing 5 g per day of margarine and mayonnaise with the equivalent amount of olive oil was associated with an 8%-14% lower risk for dementia mortality. Substitutions for other vegetable oils or butter were not significant.

“Some antioxidant compounds in olive oil can cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially having a direct effect on the brain,” Dr. Tessier said. “It is also possible that olive oil has an indirect effect on brain health by benefiting cardiovascular health.”

The authors noted several study limitations, including the possibility of reverse causation, due to the observational nature of the study.

It is also plausible that higher olive oil intake could be indicative of a healthier diet and higher socioeconomic status, although the results remained consistent after accounting these factors, the authors noted.

The study population included only healthcare professionals and was primarily non-Hispanic White people, which could limit generalizability.
 

Causality Versus Connection

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, cautioned that the study was designed to show correlation, not causation.

Other notable limitations include measuring prevalence or incidence of dementia from death records because dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are often underreported as a cause of death.

Moreover, people in the highest olive oil consumption group also had better diet quality, higher alcohol intake, were more physically active, and less likely to smoke, Dr. Edelmayer said.

“All of these factors may have an impact on risk of cognitive decline and dementia, separately from or in addition to olive oil consumption,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

She echoed the authors’ concerns that the study was conducted in predominantly non-Hispanic White people and noted that the protective benefits of olive oil were no longer statistically significant for men after adjusting for potential confounders.

It “would be wonderful if a particular food could delay or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, but we do not have scientific evidence that these claims are true,” Dr. Edelmayer said. “We need randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate whether any foods have a scientifically proven beneficial effect.”

This study is supported by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health to the senior author. The NHS, NHSII, and HPFS are supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Tessier is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Postdoctoral Fellowship Award. Senior author Guasch-Ferré is supported by a Novo Nordisk Foundation grant. Dr. Tessier reported no other relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Edelmayer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High olive oil consumption is associated with a significant decreased risk for dementia-related mortality, regardless of overall diet quality, a new study suggested.

Data from a prospective study of more than 92,000 people showed consuming at least 7 g of olive oil a day — about half a tablespoon — was associated with a 28% lower risk for dementia-related death.

Replacing one teaspoon of margarine and mayonnaise with the equivalent amount of olive oil was associated with an 8%-14% lower risk for dementia-related mortality.

“Opting for olive oil, a natural product, instead of more processed fats such as margarine and mayonnaise, is a safe choice and may reduce risk of fatal dementia,” said lead investigator Anne-Julie Tessier, RD, PhD, research associate, Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

However, “intervention studies are needed to confirm causal effect and optimal quantity of olive oil intake,” she added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Spoonful of Olive Oil

A growing body of evidence has shown a link between the Mediterranean diet and preserved cognitive function and lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). But its association with dementia mortality was unknown.

Investigators analyzed data on over 92,000 participants (66% women; mean age, 56 years) in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) who were free of CVD and cancer at baseline.

Both studies were conducted between 1990 and 2018, with olive oil intake assessed every 4 years using a food frequency questionnaire. Dementia-related mortality was ascertained from death records.

The researchers also evaluated the joint association of diet quality (particularly adherence to the Mediterranean diet and Alternative Healthy Eating Index score) and olive oil consumption with the risk for dementia-related mortality. And they estimated the difference in the risk for dementia-related mortality when other dietary fats were substituted with an equivalent amount of olive oil.

There were 4751 dementia-related deaths during the 28-year follow-up period. People with two copies of the apolipoprotein epsilon-4 (APOE epsilon-4) allele — a known risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease — had a fivefold to ninefold greater likelihood of dementia-related death.

Compared with no or rare olive oil intake, consumption of 7 g of olive oil or more per day was associated with a 28% lower risk for dementia-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P < .001), after adjusting for lifestyle and socioeconomic factors. The finding remained consistent even with further adjustment for the APOE epsilon-4 allele.

Each 5-g increment in olive oil consumption had an inverse association with dementia-related death in women (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93) but not in men (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04).

No interaction by diet quality scores was found.
 

No Link With Diet Quality

“Typically, people who use olive oil for cooking or as a dressing have an overall better quality of their diet, but interestingly, we found the association between more olive oil and reduced risk of dementia-related death to be regardless of this factor,” Dr. Tessier said.

Replacing 5 g per day of margarine and mayonnaise with the equivalent amount of olive oil was associated with an 8%-14% lower risk for dementia mortality. Substitutions for other vegetable oils or butter were not significant.

“Some antioxidant compounds in olive oil can cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially having a direct effect on the brain,” Dr. Tessier said. “It is also possible that olive oil has an indirect effect on brain health by benefiting cardiovascular health.”

The authors noted several study limitations, including the possibility of reverse causation, due to the observational nature of the study.

It is also plausible that higher olive oil intake could be indicative of a healthier diet and higher socioeconomic status, although the results remained consistent after accounting these factors, the authors noted.

The study population included only healthcare professionals and was primarily non-Hispanic White people, which could limit generalizability.
 

Causality Versus Connection

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, cautioned that the study was designed to show correlation, not causation.

Other notable limitations include measuring prevalence or incidence of dementia from death records because dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are often underreported as a cause of death.

Moreover, people in the highest olive oil consumption group also had better diet quality, higher alcohol intake, were more physically active, and less likely to smoke, Dr. Edelmayer said.

“All of these factors may have an impact on risk of cognitive decline and dementia, separately from or in addition to olive oil consumption,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

She echoed the authors’ concerns that the study was conducted in predominantly non-Hispanic White people and noted that the protective benefits of olive oil were no longer statistically significant for men after adjusting for potential confounders.

It “would be wonderful if a particular food could delay or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, but we do not have scientific evidence that these claims are true,” Dr. Edelmayer said. “We need randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate whether any foods have a scientifically proven beneficial effect.”

This study is supported by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health to the senior author. The NHS, NHSII, and HPFS are supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Tessier is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Postdoctoral Fellowship Award. Senior author Guasch-Ferré is supported by a Novo Nordisk Foundation grant. Dr. Tessier reported no other relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Edelmayer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High olive oil consumption is associated with a significant decreased risk for dementia-related mortality, regardless of overall diet quality, a new study suggested.

Data from a prospective study of more than 92,000 people showed consuming at least 7 g of olive oil a day — about half a tablespoon — was associated with a 28% lower risk for dementia-related death.

Replacing one teaspoon of margarine and mayonnaise with the equivalent amount of olive oil was associated with an 8%-14% lower risk for dementia-related mortality.

“Opting for olive oil, a natural product, instead of more processed fats such as margarine and mayonnaise, is a safe choice and may reduce risk of fatal dementia,” said lead investigator Anne-Julie Tessier, RD, PhD, research associate, Department of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston.

However, “intervention studies are needed to confirm causal effect and optimal quantity of olive oil intake,” she added.

The study was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

A Spoonful of Olive Oil

A growing body of evidence has shown a link between the Mediterranean diet and preserved cognitive function and lower risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). But its association with dementia mortality was unknown.

Investigators analyzed data on over 92,000 participants (66% women; mean age, 56 years) in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (HPFS) who were free of CVD and cancer at baseline.

Both studies were conducted between 1990 and 2018, with olive oil intake assessed every 4 years using a food frequency questionnaire. Dementia-related mortality was ascertained from death records.

The researchers also evaluated the joint association of diet quality (particularly adherence to the Mediterranean diet and Alternative Healthy Eating Index score) and olive oil consumption with the risk for dementia-related mortality. And they estimated the difference in the risk for dementia-related mortality when other dietary fats were substituted with an equivalent amount of olive oil.

There were 4751 dementia-related deaths during the 28-year follow-up period. People with two copies of the apolipoprotein epsilon-4 (APOE epsilon-4) allele — a known risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease — had a fivefold to ninefold greater likelihood of dementia-related death.

Compared with no or rare olive oil intake, consumption of 7 g of olive oil or more per day was associated with a 28% lower risk for dementia-related mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P < .001), after adjusting for lifestyle and socioeconomic factors. The finding remained consistent even with further adjustment for the APOE epsilon-4 allele.

Each 5-g increment in olive oil consumption had an inverse association with dementia-related death in women (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.84-0.93) but not in men (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.88-1.04).

No interaction by diet quality scores was found.
 

No Link With Diet Quality

“Typically, people who use olive oil for cooking or as a dressing have an overall better quality of their diet, but interestingly, we found the association between more olive oil and reduced risk of dementia-related death to be regardless of this factor,” Dr. Tessier said.

Replacing 5 g per day of margarine and mayonnaise with the equivalent amount of olive oil was associated with an 8%-14% lower risk for dementia mortality. Substitutions for other vegetable oils or butter were not significant.

“Some antioxidant compounds in olive oil can cross the blood-brain barrier, potentially having a direct effect on the brain,” Dr. Tessier said. “It is also possible that olive oil has an indirect effect on brain health by benefiting cardiovascular health.”

The authors noted several study limitations, including the possibility of reverse causation, due to the observational nature of the study.

It is also plausible that higher olive oil intake could be indicative of a healthier diet and higher socioeconomic status, although the results remained consistent after accounting these factors, the authors noted.

The study population included only healthcare professionals and was primarily non-Hispanic White people, which could limit generalizability.
 

Causality Versus Connection

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, senior director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, cautioned that the study was designed to show correlation, not causation.

Other notable limitations include measuring prevalence or incidence of dementia from death records because dementia and Alzheimer’s disease are often underreported as a cause of death.

Moreover, people in the highest olive oil consumption group also had better diet quality, higher alcohol intake, were more physically active, and less likely to smoke, Dr. Edelmayer said.

“All of these factors may have an impact on risk of cognitive decline and dementia, separately from or in addition to olive oil consumption,” said Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

She echoed the authors’ concerns that the study was conducted in predominantly non-Hispanic White people and noted that the protective benefits of olive oil were no longer statistically significant for men after adjusting for potential confounders.

It “would be wonderful if a particular food could delay or prevent Alzheimer’s disease, but we do not have scientific evidence that these claims are true,” Dr. Edelmayer said. “We need randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate whether any foods have a scientifically proven beneficial effect.”

This study is supported by a research grant from the National Institutes of Health to the senior author. The NHS, NHSII, and HPFS are supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. Tessier is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Postdoctoral Fellowship Award. Senior author Guasch-Ferré is supported by a Novo Nordisk Foundation grant. Dr. Tessier reported no other relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Edelmayer reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults is independently associated with an increased risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), dementia, and nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI), results of a new study showed.

“Determining whether there is an association between ADHD and subsequent conversion to a specific type of dementia is important. This information could generate opportunities for prevention and early treatment, as well as initiate research into the pathophysiological processes involved in understanding the process of cognitive decline,” the researchers, led by Ángel Golimstok, MD, of Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina, wrote.

The findings were published online in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Seeking Confirmation

The researchers first identified a link between DLB and ADHD in 2011. Since then, there have been eight additional studies from other groups also showing a possible link between ADHD and DLB.

To confirm the relationship, the researchers recruited 270 individuals between the ages of 45 and 70 years between 2007 and 2012. Of these, 161 had ADHD, and 109 were healthy controls.

Participants with ADHD met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, text revision criteria for a diagnosis in the past and had a chronic course of ADHD symptoms from adolescence to adulthood that caused mild to severe impairment.

Investigators excluded participants who had been taking ADHD medications for 6 months or more, those with MCI at study initiation, and those with other comorbid psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, all participants received a physical exam, an MRI, and a neuropsychological exam to test for any type of dementia-related impairment.

Study participants were followed for an average of 12 years. A total of 27 individuals with ADHD developed dementia versus four patients in the control group (17% vs 4%, respectively), and 19 of those also had DLB (P = .002 for both).

Of those who developed any type of dementia, 87% were from the ADHD group. The most frequent type of dementia was DLB, 95% of which occurred in the ADHD group. Overall, DLB represented 70% of the dementia cases among participants with ADHD.

A total of 108 participants with ADHD were subsequently diagnosed with naMCI versus 19 healthy controls (67% vs 17%; P < .001).

“Although this pattern of deficits is reasonably expected in early DLB, these results should be interpreted with caution because they may be related to the overlap of symptoms and cognitive deficits between ADHD and naMCI, which may lead to an overestimation of the degenerative phenomenon. Thus, our cases of naMCI could correspond to the natural aging of ADHD patients and not to pathological deterioration,” the authors wrote.

The researchers pointed out that the sample of patients with ADHD originally sought evaluation because of a cognitive complaint or their own motivation. Therefore, the study results are not generalizable to all patients with ADHD. Another limitation was the relatively small number of patients included in the sample.

There was no reported source of funding, and there were no relevant disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults is independently associated with an increased risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), dementia, and nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI), results of a new study showed.

“Determining whether there is an association between ADHD and subsequent conversion to a specific type of dementia is important. This information could generate opportunities for prevention and early treatment, as well as initiate research into the pathophysiological processes involved in understanding the process of cognitive decline,” the researchers, led by Ángel Golimstok, MD, of Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina, wrote.

The findings were published online in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Seeking Confirmation

The researchers first identified a link between DLB and ADHD in 2011. Since then, there have been eight additional studies from other groups also showing a possible link between ADHD and DLB.

To confirm the relationship, the researchers recruited 270 individuals between the ages of 45 and 70 years between 2007 and 2012. Of these, 161 had ADHD, and 109 were healthy controls.

Participants with ADHD met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, text revision criteria for a diagnosis in the past and had a chronic course of ADHD symptoms from adolescence to adulthood that caused mild to severe impairment.

Investigators excluded participants who had been taking ADHD medications for 6 months or more, those with MCI at study initiation, and those with other comorbid psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, all participants received a physical exam, an MRI, and a neuropsychological exam to test for any type of dementia-related impairment.

Study participants were followed for an average of 12 years. A total of 27 individuals with ADHD developed dementia versus four patients in the control group (17% vs 4%, respectively), and 19 of those also had DLB (P = .002 for both).

Of those who developed any type of dementia, 87% were from the ADHD group. The most frequent type of dementia was DLB, 95% of which occurred in the ADHD group. Overall, DLB represented 70% of the dementia cases among participants with ADHD.

A total of 108 participants with ADHD were subsequently diagnosed with naMCI versus 19 healthy controls (67% vs 17%; P < .001).

“Although this pattern of deficits is reasonably expected in early DLB, these results should be interpreted with caution because they may be related to the overlap of symptoms and cognitive deficits between ADHD and naMCI, which may lead to an overestimation of the degenerative phenomenon. Thus, our cases of naMCI could correspond to the natural aging of ADHD patients and not to pathological deterioration,” the authors wrote.

The researchers pointed out that the sample of patients with ADHD originally sought evaluation because of a cognitive complaint or their own motivation. Therefore, the study results are not generalizable to all patients with ADHD. Another limitation was the relatively small number of patients included in the sample.

There was no reported source of funding, and there were no relevant disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults is independently associated with an increased risk for dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), dementia, and nonamnestic mild cognitive impairment (naMCI), results of a new study showed.

“Determining whether there is an association between ADHD and subsequent conversion to a specific type of dementia is important. This information could generate opportunities for prevention and early treatment, as well as initiate research into the pathophysiological processes involved in understanding the process of cognitive decline,” the researchers, led by Ángel Golimstok, MD, of Hospital Italiano, Buenos Aires, Argentina, wrote.

The findings were published online in The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Seeking Confirmation

The researchers first identified a link between DLB and ADHD in 2011. Since then, there have been eight additional studies from other groups also showing a possible link between ADHD and DLB.

To confirm the relationship, the researchers recruited 270 individuals between the ages of 45 and 70 years between 2007 and 2012. Of these, 161 had ADHD, and 109 were healthy controls.

Participants with ADHD met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, text revision criteria for a diagnosis in the past and had a chronic course of ADHD symptoms from adolescence to adulthood that caused mild to severe impairment.

Investigators excluded participants who had been taking ADHD medications for 6 months or more, those with MCI at study initiation, and those with other comorbid psychiatric disorders.

At baseline, all participants received a physical exam, an MRI, and a neuropsychological exam to test for any type of dementia-related impairment.

Study participants were followed for an average of 12 years. A total of 27 individuals with ADHD developed dementia versus four patients in the control group (17% vs 4%, respectively), and 19 of those also had DLB (P = .002 for both).

Of those who developed any type of dementia, 87% were from the ADHD group. The most frequent type of dementia was DLB, 95% of which occurred in the ADHD group. Overall, DLB represented 70% of the dementia cases among participants with ADHD.

A total of 108 participants with ADHD were subsequently diagnosed with naMCI versus 19 healthy controls (67% vs 17%; P < .001).

“Although this pattern of deficits is reasonably expected in early DLB, these results should be interpreted with caution because they may be related to the overlap of symptoms and cognitive deficits between ADHD and naMCI, which may lead to an overestimation of the degenerative phenomenon. Thus, our cases of naMCI could correspond to the natural aging of ADHD patients and not to pathological deterioration,” the authors wrote.

The researchers pointed out that the sample of patients with ADHD originally sought evaluation because of a cognitive complaint or their own motivation. Therefore, the study results are not generalizable to all patients with ADHD. Another limitation was the relatively small number of patients included in the sample.

There was no reported source of funding, and there were no relevant disclosures reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.