Clinical Psychiatry News

TOPLINE:

Patients with heart failure (HF) and depression who receive psychotherapy have the same (almost 50% reduction) in depressive symptoms as those treated with pharmacotherapy, show more improvement in physical-related quality of life, and are less likely to visit emergency departments (EDs), a comparative trial of these interventions found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 416 patients with HF and a confirmed depressive disorder from the Cedars-Sinai Health System, with a mean age of 60.71 years, including nearly 42% women and 30% Black individuals, who were randomized to receive one of two evidence-based treatments for depression in HF: Antidepressant medication management (MEDS) or behavioral activation (BA) psychotherapy. BA therapy promotes engaging in pleasurable and rewarding activities without delving into complex cognitive domains explored in cognitive behavioral therapy, another psychotherapy type.
• All patients received 12 weekly sessions delivered via video or telephone, followed by monthly sessions for 3 months, and were then contacted as needed for an additional 6 months.
• The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9), and secondary outcomes included three measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) — caregiver burden, morbidity, and mortality — collected at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Physical and mental HRQOL were measured with the 12-Item Short-Form Medical Outcomes Study (SF-12), HF-specific HRQOL with the 23-item patient-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, caregiver burden with the 26-item Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for HF, morbidity by ED visits, hospital readmissions, and days hospitalized, and mortality data came from medical records and family or caregiver reports, with survival assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, insurance type, recruitment site (inpatient or outpatient), ejection fraction (preserved or reduced), New York Heart Association class, medical history, and medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Depressive symptom severity was reduced at 6 months by nearly 50% for both BA (mean PHQ-9 score, 7.53; P vs baseline < .001) and MEDS (mean PHQ-9 score, 8.09; P vs baseline < .001) participants, with reductions persisting at 12 months and no significant difference between groups.
• Compared with MEDS recipients, those who received BA had slightly higher improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (multivariable mean difference without imputation, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.06-4.20; P = .04), but there were no statistically significant differences between groups in mental HRQOL, HF-specific HRQOL, or caregiver burden at 3, 6, or 12 months.
• Patients who received BA were significantly less likely than those in the MEDS group to have ED visits and spent fewer days in hospital at 3, 6, and 12 months, but there was no significant difference in number of hospital readmissions or in mortality at 3, 6, or 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings of comparable primary effects between BA and MEDS suggest both options are effective and that personal preferences, patient values, and availability of services could inform decisions,” the authors wrote. They noted BA has no pharmacological adverse effects but requires more engagement than drug therapy and might be less accessible.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Waguih William IsHak, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and others. It was published online on January 17, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study had no control group, such as a waiting list, it was impossible to draw conclusions about the natural course of depressive symptoms in HF. However, the authors noted improvements were sustained at 12 months despite substantially diminished contact with intervention teams after 6 months. Researchers were unable to collect data for ED visits, readmissions, and hospital stays outside of California and didn’t assess treatment preference at enrollment, which could have helped inform the association with outcomes and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute, paid to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Dr. IsHak reported receiving royalties from Springer Nature and Cambridge University Press. No other disclosures were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with heart failure (HF) and depression who receive psychotherapy have the same (almost 50% reduction) in depressive symptoms as those treated with pharmacotherapy, show more improvement in physical-related quality of life, and are less likely to visit emergency departments (EDs), a comparative trial of these interventions found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 416 patients with HF and a confirmed depressive disorder from the Cedars-Sinai Health System, with a mean age of 60.71 years, including nearly 42% women and 30% Black individuals, who were randomized to receive one of two evidence-based treatments for depression in HF: Antidepressant medication management (MEDS) or behavioral activation (BA) psychotherapy. BA therapy promotes engaging in pleasurable and rewarding activities without delving into complex cognitive domains explored in cognitive behavioral therapy, another psychotherapy type.
• All patients received 12 weekly sessions delivered via video or telephone, followed by monthly sessions for 3 months, and were then contacted as needed for an additional 6 months.
• The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9), and secondary outcomes included three measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) — caregiver burden, morbidity, and mortality — collected at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Physical and mental HRQOL were measured with the 12-Item Short-Form Medical Outcomes Study (SF-12), HF-specific HRQOL with the 23-item patient-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, caregiver burden with the 26-item Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for HF, morbidity by ED visits, hospital readmissions, and days hospitalized, and mortality data came from medical records and family or caregiver reports, with survival assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, insurance type, recruitment site (inpatient or outpatient), ejection fraction (preserved or reduced), New York Heart Association class, medical history, and medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Depressive symptom severity was reduced at 6 months by nearly 50% for both BA (mean PHQ-9 score, 7.53; P vs baseline < .001) and MEDS (mean PHQ-9 score, 8.09; P vs baseline < .001) participants, with reductions persisting at 12 months and no significant difference between groups.
• Compared with MEDS recipients, those who received BA had slightly higher improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (multivariable mean difference without imputation, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.06-4.20; P = .04), but there were no statistically significant differences between groups in mental HRQOL, HF-specific HRQOL, or caregiver burden at 3, 6, or 12 months.
• Patients who received BA were significantly less likely than those in the MEDS group to have ED visits and spent fewer days in hospital at 3, 6, and 12 months, but there was no significant difference in number of hospital readmissions or in mortality at 3, 6, or 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings of comparable primary effects between BA and MEDS suggest both options are effective and that personal preferences, patient values, and availability of services could inform decisions,” the authors wrote. They noted BA has no pharmacological adverse effects but requires more engagement than drug therapy and might be less accessible.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Waguih William IsHak, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and others. It was published online on January 17, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study had no control group, such as a waiting list, it was impossible to draw conclusions about the natural course of depressive symptoms in HF. However, the authors noted improvements were sustained at 12 months despite substantially diminished contact with intervention teams after 6 months. Researchers were unable to collect data for ED visits, readmissions, and hospital stays outside of California and didn’t assess treatment preference at enrollment, which could have helped inform the association with outcomes and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute, paid to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Dr. IsHak reported receiving royalties from Springer Nature and Cambridge University Press. No other disclosures were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Patients with heart failure (HF) and depression who receive psychotherapy have the same (almost 50% reduction) in depressive symptoms as those treated with pharmacotherapy, show more improvement in physical-related quality of life, and are less likely to visit emergency departments (EDs), a comparative trial of these interventions found.

METHODOLOGY:

• The study included 416 patients with HF and a confirmed depressive disorder from the Cedars-Sinai Health System, with a mean age of 60.71 years, including nearly 42% women and 30% Black individuals, who were randomized to receive one of two evidence-based treatments for depression in HF: Antidepressant medication management (MEDS) or behavioral activation (BA) psychotherapy. BA therapy promotes engaging in pleasurable and rewarding activities without delving into complex cognitive domains explored in cognitive behavioral therapy, another psychotherapy type.
• All patients received 12 weekly sessions delivered via video or telephone, followed by monthly sessions for 3 months, and were then contacted as needed for an additional 6 months.
• The primary outcome was depressive symptom severity at 6 months, measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9), and secondary outcomes included three measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) — caregiver burden, morbidity, and mortality — collected at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Physical and mental HRQOL were measured with the 12-Item Short-Form Medical Outcomes Study (SF-12), HF-specific HRQOL with the 23-item patient-reported Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, caregiver burden with the 26-item Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for HF, morbidity by ED visits, hospital readmissions, and days hospitalized, and mortality data came from medical records and family or caregiver reports, with survival assessed using Kaplan-Meier plots at 3, 6, and 12 months.
• Covariates included age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, employment, education, insurance type, recruitment site (inpatient or outpatient), ejection fraction (preserved or reduced), New York Heart Association class, medical history, and medications.

TAKEAWAY:

• Depressive symptom severity was reduced at 6 months by nearly 50% for both BA (mean PHQ-9 score, 7.53; P vs baseline < .001) and MEDS (mean PHQ-9 score, 8.09; P vs baseline < .001) participants, with reductions persisting at 12 months and no significant difference between groups.
• Compared with MEDS recipients, those who received BA had slightly higher improvement in physical HRQOL at 6 months (multivariable mean difference without imputation, 2.13; 95% CI, 0.06-4.20; P = .04), but there were no statistically significant differences between groups in mental HRQOL, HF-specific HRQOL, or caregiver burden at 3, 6, or 12 months.
• Patients who received BA were significantly less likely than those in the MEDS group to have ED visits and spent fewer days in hospital at 3, 6, and 12 months, but there was no significant difference in number of hospital readmissions or in mortality at 3, 6, or 12 months.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings of comparable primary effects between BA and MEDS suggest both options are effective and that personal preferences, patient values, and availability of services could inform decisions,” the authors wrote. They noted BA has no pharmacological adverse effects but requires more engagement than drug therapy and might be less accessible.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Waguih William IsHak, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, and others. It was published online on January 17, 2024, in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

As the study had no control group, such as a waiting list, it was impossible to draw conclusions about the natural course of depressive symptoms in HF. However, the authors noted improvements were sustained at 12 months despite substantially diminished contact with intervention teams after 6 months. Researchers were unable to collect data for ED visits, readmissions, and hospital stays outside of California and didn’t assess treatment preference at enrollment, which could have helped inform the association with outcomes and adherence.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute, paid to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center. Dr. IsHak reported receiving royalties from Springer Nature and Cambridge University Press. No other disclosures were reported.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is linked to a twofold increased risk for all-cause mortality and a heightened risk for death from both natural and unnatural causes, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied a population-based cohort (58% female) of 61,378 people with OCD and 613,780 unaffected individuals from several Swedish population registers and a sibling cohort of 34,085 people with OCD (58% female) and 47,874 unaffected full siblings (48% female).
• The median 8.1-year follow-up and median age at first diagnosis of OCD were 27 years.
• The researchers used Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for birth year, sex, county, country of birth (Sweden vs abroad), and sociodemographic variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, individuals with OCD had almost twice the risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.76-1.89), an almost threefold higher risk for mortality due to unnatural causes (aHR, 3.30; 95% CI, 3.05-3.57), and a higher risk for mortality due to natural causes (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37).
• Of all the unnatural causes of death, suicide was most common (hazard ratio [HR], 4.90; 95% CI, 4.40-5.46), followed by accidents (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).
• Similar results were found in the sibling comparison, where the HR of all-cause mortality was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.67-2.03), death from natural causes was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.35-1.68), and death from unnatural causes was 3.10 (95% CI, 2.52-3.80).
• Natural causes of death that were higher in the OCD vs non-OCD cohort included endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases; mental and behavioral disorders; and diseases of the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and genitourinary systems.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better surveillance, prevention, and early intervention strategies should be implemented to reduce the risk of fatal outcomes in people with OCD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on January 17 in the British Medical Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not establish causality. Registry data used by the investigators only included diagnoses made in specialist care and may not have included diagnoses made in other settings. It is also unclear whether the findings, derived from a Swedish population, can be generalized to other populations, health systems, and medical practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Region Stockholm, the Swedish Society of Medicine, and Karolinska Institutet. Dr. de la Cruz received royalties for contributing articles to UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer Health and for editorial work from Elsevier outside the submitted work. See the paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is linked to a twofold increased risk for all-cause mortality and a heightened risk for death from both natural and unnatural causes, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied a population-based cohort (58% female) of 61,378 people with OCD and 613,780 unaffected individuals from several Swedish population registers and a sibling cohort of 34,085 people with OCD (58% female) and 47,874 unaffected full siblings (48% female).
• The median 8.1-year follow-up and median age at first diagnosis of OCD were 27 years.
• The researchers used Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for birth year, sex, county, country of birth (Sweden vs abroad), and sociodemographic variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, individuals with OCD had almost twice the risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.76-1.89), an almost threefold higher risk for mortality due to unnatural causes (aHR, 3.30; 95% CI, 3.05-3.57), and a higher risk for mortality due to natural causes (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37).
• Of all the unnatural causes of death, suicide was most common (hazard ratio [HR], 4.90; 95% CI, 4.40-5.46), followed by accidents (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).
• Similar results were found in the sibling comparison, where the HR of all-cause mortality was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.67-2.03), death from natural causes was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.35-1.68), and death from unnatural causes was 3.10 (95% CI, 2.52-3.80).
• Natural causes of death that were higher in the OCD vs non-OCD cohort included endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases; mental and behavioral disorders; and diseases of the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and genitourinary systems.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better surveillance, prevention, and early intervention strategies should be implemented to reduce the risk of fatal outcomes in people with OCD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on January 17 in the British Medical Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not establish causality. Registry data used by the investigators only included diagnoses made in specialist care and may not have included diagnoses made in other settings. It is also unclear whether the findings, derived from a Swedish population, can be generalized to other populations, health systems, and medical practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Region Stockholm, the Swedish Society of Medicine, and Karolinska Institutet. Dr. de la Cruz received royalties for contributing articles to UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer Health and for editorial work from Elsevier outside the submitted work. See the paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is linked to a twofold increased risk for all-cause mortality and a heightened risk for death from both natural and unnatural causes, a new study showed.

METHODOLOGY:

• Investigators studied a population-based cohort (58% female) of 61,378 people with OCD and 613,780 unaffected individuals from several Swedish population registers and a sibling cohort of 34,085 people with OCD (58% female) and 47,874 unaffected full siblings (48% female).
• The median 8.1-year follow-up and median age at first diagnosis of OCD were 27 years.
• The researchers used Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for birth year, sex, county, country of birth (Sweden vs abroad), and sociodemographic variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with controls, individuals with OCD had almost twice the risk for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.82; 95% CI, 1.76-1.89), an almost threefold higher risk for mortality due to unnatural causes (aHR, 3.30; 95% CI, 3.05-3.57), and a higher risk for mortality due to natural causes (aHR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.24-1.37).
• Of all the unnatural causes of death, suicide was most common (hazard ratio [HR], 4.90; 95% CI, 4.40-5.46), followed by accidents (HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.68-2.19).
• Similar results were found in the sibling comparison, where the HR of all-cause mortality was 1.85 (95% CI, 1.67-2.03), death from natural causes was 1.51 (95% CI, 1.35-1.68), and death from unnatural causes was 3.10 (95% CI, 2.52-3.80).
• Natural causes of death that were higher in the OCD vs non-OCD cohort included endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases; mental and behavioral disorders; and diseases of the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, digestive, and genitourinary systems.

IN PRACTICE:

“Better surveillance, prevention, and early intervention strategies should be implemented to reduce the risk of fatal outcomes in people with OCD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Lorena Fernández de la Cruz, PhD, of Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden, led the study, which was published online on January 17 in the British Medical Journal.

LIMITATIONS:

The study does not establish causality. Registry data used by the investigators only included diagnoses made in specialist care and may not have included diagnoses made in other settings. It is also unclear whether the findings, derived from a Swedish population, can be generalized to other populations, health systems, and medical practices.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Swedish Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare, Region Stockholm, the Swedish Society of Medicine, and Karolinska Institutet. Dr. de la Cruz received royalties for contributing articles to UpToDate and Wolters Kluwer Health and for editorial work from Elsevier outside the submitted work. See the paper for disclosures of the other authors.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A recent study sheds light on the heightened risk for burnout among physicians who take infrequent vacations and engage in patient-related work during their time off.

Conducted by the American Medical Association (AMA), the study focuses on the United States, where labor regulations regarding vacation days and compensation differ from German norms. Despite this distinction, it provides valuable insights into the vacation behavior of doctors and its potential impact on burnout risk.

Christine A. Sinsky, MD, study author and senior physician advisor for physician satisfaction at the AMA, and her colleagues invited more than 90,000 physicians to participate in a survey that used postal and computer-based methods. In all, 3024 physicians, mainly those contacted by mail, filled out the questionnaire.
 

Limited Vacation Days

A significant proportion (59.6%) of respondents reported having taken fewer than 15 vacation days in the previous year, with nearly 20% taking fewer than 5 days off. Even when officially on vacation, most (70.4%) found themselves dealing with patient-related tasks. For one-third, these tasks consumed at least 30 minutes on a typical vacation day, often longer. This phenomenon was noted especially among female physicians.

Doctors who took less vacation and worked during their time off displayed higher emotional exhaustion and reported feeling less fulfilled in their profession.
 

Administrative Tasks 

Administrative tasks, though no longer confined to paper, significantly influenced physicians’ vacation behavior. In the United States, handling messages from patients through the electronic health records (EHR) inbox demands a considerable amount of time.

Courses and tutorials on EHR inbox management are on the rise. A 2023 review linked electronic health records management to an increased burnout risk in the US medical community.
 

Lack of Coverage 

Many physicians lack coverage for their EHR inbox during their absence. Less than half (49.1%) stated that someone else manages their inbox while they are on vacation.

Difficulty in finding coverage, whether for the EHR inbox or patient care, is a leading reason why many physicians seldom take more than 3 weeks of vacation per year. Financial considerations also contribute to this decision, as revealed in the survey.
 

Vacation Lowers Risk

Further analysis showed that doctors who took more than 3 weeks of vacation per year, which is not common, had a lower risk of developing burnout. Having coverage for vacation was also associated with reduced burnout risk and increased professional fulfillment.

However, these benefits applied only when physicians truly took a break during their vacation. Respondents who spent 30 minutes or more per day on patient-related work had a higher burnout risk. The risk was 1.58 times greater for 30-60 minutes, 1.97 times greater for 60-90 minutes, and 1.92 times greater for more than 90 minutes.
 

System-Level Interventions

The vacation behavior observed in this study likely exacerbates the effects of chronic workplace overload that are associated with long working hours, thus increasing the risk for burnout, according to the researchers.

“System-level measures must be implemented to ensure physicians take an appropriate number of vacation days,” wrote the researchers. “This includes having coverage available to handle clinical activities and administrative tasks, such as managing the EHR inbox. This could potentially reduce the burnout rate among physicians.”

This article was translated from the Medscape German edition. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mental health comorbidities are prevalent among youth with overweight or obesity, with the strongest risk factors being male sex, older age, and extreme obesity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared clinical characteristics and outcomes among children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity with or without a comorbid mental disorder who participated in a lifestyle intervention program.
• Overall, data from 114,248 individuals (age, 6-30 years; 53% females) from 226 centers in Germany and Austria participating in the Adiposity Patient Registry were evaluated.
• Individuals were excluded if they had bariatric surgery or used weight-modifying drugs (metformin, orlistat, or glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues).
• Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as a standard deviation score (SDS) from a German youth population reference and was used to define overweight (90th to < 97th percentile), obesity (97th percentile), and severe obesity (≥ 99.5th percentile), which at age 18 correspond to adult cutoffs for overweight and obesity (25 kg/m² and 30 kg/m², respectively).
• Regression analysis identified the factors associated with mental disorders in those with overweight or obesity.

TAKEAWAY:

• A comorbid mental disorder was reported in 3969 individuals, with attention-deficit disorder (ADHD, 42.5%), anxiety (31.3%), depression (24.3%), and eating disorders (12.9%) being the most common.
• The factors most strongly associated with mental health comorbidity were male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.27-1.52), older age (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.25-1.62), and severe obesity (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.30-1.63).
• Mean BMI-SDS was higher in individuals with depression and eating disorders and lower in individuals with ADHD (both P < .001) than in those without mental disorders.
• Individuals with and without mental disorders benefited from similar BMI changes from lifestyle intervention programs.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors wrote, “Healthcare professionals caring for youth with overweight or obesity should be aware of comorbid mental disorders, and regular mental health screening should be considered.”

SOURCE:

This study, led by Angela Galler from the Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, was published online on January 9, 2024, in the International Journal of Obesity.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s findings are based on data from a group of children, adolescents, and young adults with overweight or obesity treated in specialized obesity centers and may not be generalizable to all youth with obesity. Moreover, the study could not establish any conclusions regarding the cause or effect between obesity and mental disorders. Individuals were not tested psychologically for mental disorders and might have been underreported.

DISCLOSURES:

The manuscript is part of the Stratification of Obesity Phenotypes to Optimize Future Obesity Therapy project, which was funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent reporting has shown that the number of physician-scientists — doctors who both practice medicine and perform scientific research — in the United States is dropping rapidly. That’s a problem, because physician-scientists are uniquely equipped to make scientific discoveries in the laboratory and translate them to the clinic. Indeed, many of the discoveries that have transformed medicine for the better were made by physician-scientists. For example, Jonas Salk developed the polio vaccine, Timothy Ley sequenced the first cancer genome, and Anthony Fauci coordinated public health responses to both the HIV/AIDS and COVID-19 pandemics. Indicative of their sheer impact, at least a third and as many as half of all Nobel Prizes and Lasker Awards in physiology/medicine have gone to physician-scientists.

So why is the supply of physician-scientists shrinking so precipitously at a time when medical discoveries are being made at a record-high rate? Immunotherapy and proton therapy are transforming cancer care; RNA technology led to COVID vaccines; CRISPR is facilitating gene editing and treatment of diseases like sickle cell anemia. Yet, as exciting as medical science has become, only 1.5% of American doctors work as physician-scientists, more than a threefold drop compared with 30 years ago when the figure was a more robust 4.7%. What’s going on?

Residency training programs at prestigious academic medical centers have standard infolded research years; for example, neurosurgery residents at academic medical centers will often get 2 years of protected research time. And the National Institutes of Health has training grants dedicated to physician-scientists, such as the K08 award program. Several foundations are also dedicated to supporting early-career physician-scientists. Yet, the number of physicians deciding to become physician-scientists remains low, and, more troubling, the attrition rate of those who do decide to go this route is quite high.

The underlying issue is multifold. First, funding rates from the federal government for grants have become competitive to the point of being unrealistic. For example, the current funding rate for the flagship R01 program from the National Cancer Institute is only 12%. Promotions are typically tied to these grant awards, which means physician-scientists who are unable to acquire substantial grant funding are unable to pay for their research or win promotion — and often exit the physician-scientist track altogether.

Compounding this issue is a lack of mentorship for early-career physician-scientists. With the rise of “careerism” in medicine, senior-level physician-scientists may have less incentive to mentor those who are earlier in their careers. Rather, there seems to be greater reward to “managing up” — that is, spending time to please hospital administrators and departmental leadership. Being involved in countless committees appears to carry more value in advancing an established investigator’s career than does mentorship.

Finally, physician-scientists typically earn less than their clinician colleagues, despite juggling both scientific and clinical responsibilities. While many are comfortable with this arrangement when embarking on this track, the disparity may become untenable after a while, especially as departmental leadership will often turn to physician-scientists to fill clinical coverage gaps when faculty leave the department, or as the medical center expands to satellite centers outside the primary hospital. Indeed, physician-scientists get pulled in several directions, which can lead to burnout and attrition, with many who are highly equipped for this track ultimately hanging up their cleats and seeking more clinical or private industry–oriented opportunities.

Every academic medical center operates differently. Some clearly have done a better job than others promoting and fostering physician-scientists. What we find in the centers that manage to retain physician-scientists is leadership plays a major role: If a medical center values the importance of physician-scientists, they will do things to foster the success of those people, such as assembling mentorship committees, establishing clear criteria for promotion and career advancement, protecting research time while maintaining some level of pay equity, advocating for team science approaches, and supporting investigators in cases of gaps in federal funding. Different countries also have different models for physician-scientist training, with Germany, for example, allowing medical residents to have 3 years of protected time to engage in research after their second year of residency.

The stakes here are high. If we can’t address the physician-scientist recruitment and retention crisis in America now, we risk falling behind other countries in our ability to innovate and deliver world-class care.

Dr Chaudhuri is a tenure-track physician-scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, a Paul and Daisy Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project.

Aadel Chaudhuri, MD, PhD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Symptoms of anxiety and depression increased in adults living in trigger states that immediately banned abortions after the US Supreme Court Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, which revoked a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, new research shows.

This could be due to a variety of factors, investigators led by Benjamin Thornburg, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, noted. These include fear about the imminent risk of being denied an abortion, uncertainty around future limitations on abortion and other related rights such as contraception, worry over the ability to receive lifesaving medical care during pregnancy, and a general sense of violation and powerlessness related to loss of the right to reproductive autonomy.

The study was published online on January 23, 2024, in JAMA. 
 

Mental Health Harm

In June 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe vs Wade, removing federal protections for abortion rights. Thirteen states had “trigger laws” that immediately banned or severely restricted abortion — raising concerns this could negatively affect mental health.

The researchers used data from the Household Pulse Survey to estimate changes in anxiety and depression symptoms after vs before the Dobbs decision in nearly 160,000 adults living in 13 states with trigger laws compared with roughly 559,000 adults living in 37 states without trigger laws.

The mean age of respondents was 48 years, and 51% were women. Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured via the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). 

In trigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline (before Dobbs) was 3.51 (out of 12) and increased to 3.81 after the Dobbs decision. In nontrigger states, the mean PHQ-4 score at baseline was 3.31 and increased to 3.49 after Dobbs.

Living in a trigger state was associated with a small but statistically significant worsening (0.11-point; P < .001) in anxiety/depression symptoms following the Dobbs decision vs living in a nontrigger state, the investigators report.

Women aged 18-45 years faced greater worsening of anxiety and depression symptoms following Dobbs in trigger vs nontrigger states, whereas men of a similar age experienced minimal or negligible changes. 
 

Implications for Care 

In an accompanying editorial, Julie Steinberg, PhD, with University of Maryland in College Park, notes the study results provide “emerging evidence that at an individual level taking away reproductive autonomy (by not having legal access to an abortion) may increase symptoms of anxiety and depression in all people and particularly females of reproductive age.”

These results add to findings from two other studies that examined abortion restrictions and mental health outcomes. Both found that limiting access to abortion was associated with more mental health symptoms among females of reproductive age than among others,” Dr. Steinberg pointed out.

“Together these findings highlight the need for clinicians who practice in states where abortion is banned to be aware that female patients of reproductive age may be experiencing significantly more distress than before the Dobbs decision,” Dr. Steinberg added. 

The study received no specific funding. The authors had no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Steinberg reported serving as a paid expert scientist on abortion and mental health in seven cases challenging abortion policies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Newly released documents show that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that cannabis has a legitimate medical use and that it should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III on the controlled substances list.

The FDA’s recommendation was contained in a 252-page report that was sent to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in August 2023. The report, which Bloomberg News reported on in late August and may have been leaked to that news outlet, was released to Houston attorney Matthew Zorn. He filed suit in September to pressure the FDA to make its recommendation public. The FDA responded days before a court-ordered deadline, said Zorn.

The attorney was not representing any client. “This document belongs in the public sphere,” Zorn told this news organization. “I found it farcical that public policy was being debated on the basis of a document recommendation that literally no one had seen,” he said.

The Bloomberg report ignited debate, but no other advocate, attorney, or news organization had been able to obtain an unredacted version of FDA’s recommendation. 

Now that the full report is public, the DEA may be under more pressure to act. However, it is not required to do anything, and there is no set timeline for any action. Still, lawyers expect to quickly see a rule proposing moving cannabis from Schedule I to III.

“I expect it to come fairly soon and the reason I expect that is because the President told the agencies to do this expeditiously,” said Shane Pennington, an attorney with Porter Wright who has worked with Zorn on cases challenging DEA’s scheduling process but was not involved in this suit.

In October 2022, President Joe Biden said that he was asking the Department of Health and Human Services and the US Attorney General “to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.”

Howard Sklamberg, a lawyer with Arnold & Porter in Washington, DC, said that the Biden directive “certainly made the agencies reconsider” rescheduling cannabis but that it likely was going to happen anyway, given a wealth of supportive information generated since the DEA last rejected a rescheduling petition in 2016. 

Mr. Sklamberg told this news organization that he thought a proposed rule would be issued soon, with a final rule issued by mid-summer. 

“Agencies generally want to get their important rulemaking done before you get too much into the political season and the potential end of a presidency,” said Mr. Sklamberg, a former FDA deputy commissioner.
 

Credible Medical Use

The FDA said in its report that cannabis is a low-risk threat to public health and that it poses less potential for misuse than drugs in schedule I or II, such as heroin or cocaine.

Though the evidence showed that some people are using cannabis “in amounts sufficient to create a hazard to their health and to the safety of other individuals and the community evidence also exists showing that the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others,” the FDA noted. 

The agency stated that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, cocaine, benzodiazepines), based on an evaluation of various epidemiological databases for [emergency department] visits, hospitalizations, unintentional exposures, and most importantly, for overdose deaths.”

The FDA assessed cannabis’s commonly accepted medical use in seven indications: anorexia, anxiety, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, nausea and vomiting, pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder. It concluded that the strongest evidence existed for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain.

Of interest, the agency said that when it assessed the harms and benefits, it also used alcohol as a comparator even though it is not a controlled substance. The agency said that it did so because of alcohol’s extensive availability and use, “which is also observed for nonmedical use of marijuana.” 

Mr. Sklamberg found that interesting. A majority of adults have consumed cannabis or know someone who has, making it similar to alcohol, he said. And just as with alcohol, “those adults have formed their own conclusions about what marijuana is and what it isn’t,” he said.

“A lot of Americans make their judgment and think schedule I overstates the health risks,” he added.
 

Opposition in Congress 

It is not certain whether cannabis will be rescheduled; after the Bloomberg report in August, Republican members of Congress sent a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram telling her that the agency should not reschedule the drug.

“The recommendation to remove cannabis from the DEA’s list of dangerous Schedule I drugs is not based on science — it’s based on an irresponsible pro-pot agenda,” said Oklahoma Senator James Lankford (R) on X, in September.

The letter contended that there is no accepted medical use for cannabis and that “the known facts about marijuana have not changed since 2016.”

The FDA, however, based its recommendations in part in looking at data from more than 30,000 healthcare providers and six million patients who have used medical marijuana in state programs, largely established since 2016. Congress has directed the agency to evaluate more of that kind of real-world evidence when evaluating products, said Mr. Sklamberg.

He said that the FDA report will be taken seriously: “It’s a thorough and impressive document.”

“It’s not a document that looks like it was just put together by policy people or political people,” Mr. Sklamberg added. “It’s heavily grounded in science and medicine.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

With a number of large-scale clinical trials underway and researchers on the hunt for new therapies, long COVID scientists are hopeful that this is the year patients — and doctors who care for them — will finally see improvements in treating their symptoms.

Here are five bold predictions — all based on encouraging research — that could happen in 2024. At the very least, they are promising signs of progress against a debilitating and frustrating disease.

#1: We’ll gain a better understanding of each long COVID phenotype

This past year, a wide breadth of research began showing that long COVID can be defined by a number of different disease phenotypes that present a range of symptoms.

Researchers identified four clinical phenotypes: Chronic fatigue-like syndrome, headache, and memory loss; respiratory syndrome, which includes cough and difficulty breathing; chronic pain; and neurosensorial syndrome, which causes an altered sense of taste and smell.

Identifying specific diagnostic criteria for each phenotype would lead to better health outcomes for patients instead of treating them as if it were a “one-size-fits-all disease,” said Nisha Viswanathan, MD, director of the long COVID program at UCLA Health, Los Angeles, California.

Ultimately, she hopes that this year her patients will receive treatments based on the type of long COVID they’re personally experiencing, and the symptoms they have, leading to improved health outcomes and more rapid relief.

“Many new medications are focused on different pathways of long COVID, and the challenge becomes which drug is the right drug for each treatment,” said Dr. Viswanathan.

#2: Monoclonal antibodies may change the game

We’re starting to have a better understanding that what’s been called “viral persistence” as a main cause of long COVID may potentially be treated with monoclonal antibodies. These are antibodies produced by cloning unique white blood cells to target the circulating spike proteins in the blood that hang out in viral reservoirs and cause the immune system to react as if it’s still fighting acute COVID-19.

Smaller-scale studies have already shown promising results. A January 2024 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine followed three patients who completely recovered from long COVID after taking monoclonal antibodies. “Remission occurred despite dissimilar past histories, sex, age, and illness duration,” wrote the study authors.

Larger clinical trials are underway at the University of California, San Francisco, California, to test targeted monoclonal antibodies. If the results of the larger study show that monoclonal antibodies are beneficial, then it could be a game changer for a large swath of patients around the world, said David F. Putrino, PhD, who runs the long COVID clinic at Mount Sinai Health System in New York City.

“The idea is that the downstream damage caused by viral persistence will resolve itself once you wipe out the virus,” said Dr. Putrino.

#3: Paxlovid could prove effective for long COVID

The US Food and Drug Administration granted approval for Paxlovid last May for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults at a high risk for severe disease. The medication is made up of two drugs packaged together. The first, nirmatrelvir, works by blocking a key enzyme required for virus replication. The second, ritonavir, is an antiviral that’s been used in patients with HIV and helps boost levels of antivirals in the body.

In a large-scale trial headed up by Dr. Putrino and his team, the oral antiviral is being studied for use in the post-viral stage in patients who test negative for acute COVID-19 but have persisting symptoms of long COVID.

Similar to monoclonal antibodies, the idea is to quell viral persistence. If patients have long COVID because they can’t clear SAR-CoV-2 from their bodies, Paxlovid could help. But unlike monoclonal antibodies that quash the virus, Paxlovid stops the virus from replicating. It’s a different mechanism with the same end goal.

It’s been a controversial treatment because it’s life-changing for some patients and ineffective for others. In addition, it can cause a range of side effects such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and an impaired sense of taste. The goal of the trial is to see which patients with long COVID are most likely to benefit from the treatment.

#4: Anti-inflammatories like metformin could prove useful

Many of the inflammatory markers persistent in patients with long COVID were similarly present in patients with autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, according to a July 2023 study published in JAMA.

The hope is that anti-inflammatory medications may be used to reduce inflammation causing long COVID symptoms. But drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis like abatacept and infliximabcan also have serious side effects, including increased risk for infection, flu-like symptoms, and burning of the skin.

“Powerful anti-inflammatories can change a number of pathways in the immune system,” said Grace McComsey, MD, who leads the long COVID RECOVER study at University Hospitals Health System in Cleveland, Ohio. Anti-inflammatories hold promise but, Dr. McComsey said, “some are more toxic with many side effects, so even if they work, there’s still a question about who should take them.”

Still, other anti-inflammatories that could work don’t have as many side effects. For example, a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases found that the diabetes drug metformin reduced a patient’s risk for long COVID up to 40% when the drug was taken during the acute stage.

Metformin, compared to other anti-inflammatories (also known as immune modulators), is an inexpensive and widely available drug with relatively few side effects compared with other medications.

#5: Serotonin levels — and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) — may be keys to unlocking long COVID

One of the most groundbreaking studies of the year came last November. A study published in the journal Cell found lower circulating serotonin levels in patents with long COVID than in those who did not have the condition. The study also found that the SSRI fluoxetine improved cognitive function in rat models infected with the virus.

Researchers found that the reduction in serotonin levels was partially caused by the body’s inability to absorb tryptophan, an amino acid that’s a precursor to serotonin. Overactivated blood platelets may also have played a role.

Michael Peluso, MD, an assistant research professor of infectious medicine at the UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, California, hopes to take the finding a step further, investigating whether increased serotonin levels in patients with long COVID will lead to improvements in symptoms.

“What we need now is a good clinical trial to see whether altering levels of serotonin in people with long COVID will lead to symptom relief,” Dr. Peluso said last month in an interview with this news organization.

If patients show an improvement in symptoms, then the next step is looking into whether SSRIs boost serotonin levels in patients and, as a result, reduce their symptoms.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Officials at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute are moving to retract at least six published research papers and correct 31 others amid allegations of data manipulation.

News of the investigation follows a blog post by British molecular biologist Sholto David, MD, who flagged almost 60 papers published between 1997 and 2017 that contained image manipulation and other errors. Some of the papers were published by Dana-Farber’s chief executive officer, Laurie Glimcher, MD, and chief operating officer, William Hahn, MD, on topics including multiple myeloma and immune cells.

Mr. David, who blogs about research integrity, highlighted numerous errors and irregularities, including copying and pasting images across multiple experiments to represent different days within the same experiment, sometimes rotating or stretching images.

In one case, Mr. David equated the manipulation with tactics used by “hapless Chinese papermills” and concluded that “a swathe of research coming out of [Dana-Farber] authored by the most senior researchers and managers appears to be hopelessly corrupt with errors that are obvious from just a cursory reading the papers.” 

“Imagine what mistakes might be found in the raw data if anyone was allowed to look!” he wrote.

Barrett Rollins, MD, PhD, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute’s research integrity officer, declined to comment on whether the errors represent scientific misconduct, according to STAT. Rollins told ScienceInsider that the “presence of image discrepancies in a paper is not evidence of an author’s intent to deceive.” 

Access to new artificial intelligence tools is making it easier for data sleuths, like Mr. David, to unearth data manipulation and errors. 

The current investigation closely follows two other investigations into the published work of Harvard University’s former president, Claudine Gay, and Stanford University’s former president, Marc Tessier-Lavigne, which led both to resign their posts. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.

Adults with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have smaller cerebellums than unaffected adults, suggesting that this part of the brain may be a potential therapeutic target.

According to recent research on more than 4000 adults, cerebellum volume was significantly smaller (by about 2%) in those with PTSD than in trauma-exposed and trauma-naive controls without PTSD.

“The differences were largely within the posterior lobe, where a lot of the more cognitive functions attributed to the cerebellum seem to localize, as well as the vermis, which is linked to a lot of emotional processing functions,” lead author Ashley Huggins, PhD, said in a news release.

“If we know what areas are implicated, then we can start to focus interventions like brain stimulation on the cerebellum and potentially improve treatment outcomes,” said Dr. Huggins, who worked on the study while a postdoctoral researcher in the lab of Rajendra A. Morey, MD, at Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, and is now at the University of Arizona, Tucson.

While the cerebellum is known for its role in coordinating movement and balance, it also plays a key role in emotions and memory, which are affected by PTSD.

Smaller cerebellar volume has been observed in some adult and pediatric populations with PTSD.

However, those studies have been limited by either small sample sizes, the failure to consider key neuroanatomical subdivisions of the cerebellum, or a focus on certain populations such as veterans of sexual assault victims with PTSD.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers conducted a mega-analysis of total and subregional cerebellar volumes in a large, multicohort dataset from the Enhancing NeuroImaging Genetics through Meta-Analysis (ENIGMA)-Psychiatric Genomics Consortium PTSD workgroup that was published online on January 10, 2024, in Molecular Psychiatry.

They employed a novel, standardized ENIGMA cerebellum parcellation protocol to quantify cerebellar lobule volumes using structural MRI data from 1642 adults with PTSD and 2573 healthy controls without PTSD (88% trauma-exposed and 12% trauma-naive).

After adjustment for age, gender, and total intracranial volume, PTSD was associated with significant gray and white matter reductions of the cerebellum.

People with PTSD demonstrated smaller total cerebellum volume as well as reduced volume in subregions primarily within the posterior cerebellum, vermis, and flocculonodular cerebellum than controls.

In general, PTSD severity was more robustly associated with cerebellar volume differences than PTSD diagnosis.

Focusing purely on a “yes-or-no” categorical diagnosis didn’t always provide the clearest picture. “When we looked at PTSD severity, people who had more severe forms of the disorder had an even smaller cerebellar volume,” Dr. Huggins explained in the news release.

Novel Treatment Target

These findings add to “an emerging literature that underscores the relevance of cerebellar structure in the pathophysiology of PTSD,” the researchers noted.

They caution that despite the significant findings suggesting associations between PTSD and smaller cerebellar volumes, effect sizes were small. “As such, it is unlikely that structural cerebellar volumes alone will provide a clinically useful biomarker (eg, for individual-level prediction).”

Nonetheless, the study highlights the cerebellum as a “novel treatment target that may be leveraged to improve treatment outcomes for PTSD,” they wrote.

They noted that prior work has shown that the cerebellum is sensitive to external modulation. For example, noninvasive brain stimulation of the cerebellum has been shown to modulate cognitive, emotional, and social processes commonly disrupted in PTSD.

Commenting on this research, Cyrus A. Raji, MD, PhD, associate professor of radiology and neurology at Washington University in St. Louis, noted that this “large neuroimaging study links PTSD to cerebellar volume loss.”

“However, PTSD and traumatic brain injury frequently co-occur, and PTSD also frequently arises after TBI. Additionally, TBI is strongly linked to cerebellar volume loss,” Dr. Raji pointed out.

“Future studies need to better delineate volume loss from these conditions, especially when they are comorbid, though the expectation is these effects would be additive with TBI being the initial and most severe driving force,” Dr. Raji added.

The research had no commercial funding. Author disclosures are listed with the original article. Dr. Raji is a consultant for Brainreader, Apollo Health, Pacific Neuroscience Foundation, and Neurevolution Medicine LLC.
 

A version of this article appears on Medscape.com.