Clinical Psychiatry News

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

High doses of a second-generation antipsychotic are associated with a significantly increased risk for death in young adults, adding to longstanding safety concerns regarding the use of higher doses of antipsychotic medication in this age group.

In a large cohort study, people aged 18-24 years had a significantly higher risk for death when starting a second-generation antipsychotic at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but no increased mortality risk with lower doses.

There was no association with mortality risk in children aged 5-17 years with either dose.

“This finding suggests that antipsychotic medication–related fatalities are rare in healthy children without psychosis,” lead investigator Wayne Ray, PhD, from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues wrote in a recent study that was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.

“In contrast, young adults aged 18-24 years treated with doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents had 127.5 additional deaths for every 100,000 person-years of exposure, suggesting further investigations of antipsychotic medication safety in this population are needed.”
 

Large, Retrospective Study

The researchers compared mortality for more than 2 million Medicaid patients aged 5-24 years (mean age, 13 years; 51% men) starting treatment with a second-generation antipsychotic vs control psychiatric medications. None of them had a diagnosis of severe somatic illness, schizophrenia, or related psychosis.

From January 2004 through September 2013, more than 21 million prescriptions were filled — roughly 5.4 million for antipsychotic doses of 100 mg or less, 2.8 million for doses greater than 100 mg, and 13.5 million for control medications.

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotic medication was risperidone, followed by aripiprazole, quetiapine, ziprasidone, and olanzapine. The most commonly prescribed control medication was clonidine, followed by atomoxetine, guanfacine, and sertraline.

In the overall study population, there was no significant association with risk for death for antipsychotic doses less than or equal to 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.89-1.32). However, mortality risk was increased at doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70).

Looking at mortality risk by age, for children aged 5-17 years, there was no significant association with either antipsychotic dose, whereas young adults aged 18-24 years had increased risk for doses greater than 100 mg (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.23-2.29).
 

Start Low, Go Slow

“Start low and go slow is always a good rule of thumb when it comes to the use of these and any medicines, especially among especially among children and adolescents,” Caleb Alexander, MD, codirector of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, who wasn’t involved in the study, told this news organization.

Higher-dose antipsychotic treatment was significantly associated with overdose deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.02-2.42) and other unintentional injury deaths (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.12-2.22), but not with nonoverdose suicide deaths or cardiovascular/metabolic deaths.

Death certificates listed opioid involvement in more than half of overdose deaths in those taking higher antipsychotic doses as well as those taking control medications.

“That’s a good reminder that the risk of these medicines may increase markedly when they’re combined with other treatments, such as prescription opioids,” Dr. Alexander said.

Also weighing in on the research, Anish Dube, MD, chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Council on Children, Adolescents, and their Families, said the study is “notable for both the increased risk of death among young adults 18-24 prescribed treatment with antipsychotics at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents, but also for the absence of such a finding with antipsychotic use in younger age groups,” he said.

“This suggests an interaction between other factors more common to young adults, such as substance use as mentioned by the authors, and concurrent treatment with antipsychotic medications at doses greater than 100-mg chlorpromazine equivalents,” said Dr. Dube.

“As the authors point out, additional research is needed to help clarify the observed increased risk of death at this developmental juncture so as to allow us to better predict which young adults may be especially vulnerable,” Dr. Dube said.

The findings also point to a need for caution when prescribing any antipsychotic medications off label, Dr. Dube added, especially among people aged 18-24 years, and other treatments should be considered when possible.

“Thankfully, with greater awareness and increased scrutiny, overall prescriptions for antipsychotic medications in the pediatric and young adult populations have likely decreased since the study period,” he said.

Limitations of the study include potential residual confounding, confining the study population to Medicaid recipients, restriction to second-generation antipsychotics, and exclusion of individuals with psychoses or severe somatic illness. Also, insufficient numbers of deaths from specific causes precluded an examination of individual antipsychotics or more detailed dose categories.

“No study is perfect,” said Dr. Alexander, “and some of the findings may be due to unmeasured differences between the groups that were being compared. That’s the elephant in the room.”

The study was funded by a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr. Ray, Dr. Alexander, and Dr. Dube have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bromazolam, a street drug that has been detected with increasing frequency in the United States, has reportedly caused protracted seizures, myocardial injury, comas, and multiday intensive care stays in three individuals, new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed.

The substance is one of at least a dozen designer benzodiazepines created in the lab but not approved for any therapeutic use. The Center for Forensic Science Research and Education (CFSRE) reported that bromazolam was first detected in 2016 in recreational drugs in Europe and subsequently appeared in the United States.

It is sold under names such as “XLI-268,” “Xanax,” “Fake Xanax,” and “Dope.” Bromazolam may be sold in tablet or powder form, or sometimes as gummies, and is often taken with fentanyl by users.

The CDC report, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), described three cases of “previously healthy young adults,” two 25-year-old men and a 20-year-old woman, who took tablets believing it was alprazolam, when it was actually bromazolam and were found unresponsive.

They could not be revived with naloxone and continued to be unresponsive upon arrival at the emergency department. One of the men was hypertensive (152/100 mmHg), tachycardic (heart rate of 124 beats per minute), and hyperthermic (101.7 °F [38.7 °C]) and experienced multiple generalized seizures. He was intubated and admitted to intensive care.

The other man also had an elevated temperature (100.4 °F) and was intubated and admitted to the ICU because of unresponsiveness and multiple generalized seizures.

The woman was also intubated and nonresponsive with focal seizures. All three had elevated troponin levels and had urine tests positive for benzodiazepines.

The first man was intubated for 5 days and discharged after 11 days, while the second man was discharged on the fourth day with mild hearing difficulty.

The woman progressed to status epilepticus despite administration of multiple antiepileptic medications and was in a persistent coma. She was transferred to a second hospital after 11 days and was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Toxicology testing by the Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed the presence of bromazolam (range = 31.1-207 ng/mL), without the presence of fentanyl or any other opioid.

The CDC said that “the constellation of findings reported should prompt close involvement with public health officials and regional poison centers, given the more severe findings in these reported cases compared with those expected from routine benzodiazepine overdoses.” In addition, it noted that clinicians and first responders should “consider bromazolam in cases of patients requiring treatment for seizures, myocardial injury, or hyperthermia after illicit drug use.”
 

Surging Supply, Increased Warnings

In 2022, the CDC warned that the drug was surging in the United States, noting that as of mid-2022, bromazolam was identified in more than 250 toxicology cases submitted to NMS Labs, and that it had been identified in more than 190 toxicology samples tested at CFSRE.

In early 2021, only 1% of samples were positive for bromazolam. By mid-2022, 13% of samples were positive for bromazolam, and 75% of the bromazolam samples were positive for fentanyl.

The combination is sold on the street as benzo-dope.

Health authorities across the globe have been warning about the dangers of designer benzodiazepines, and bromazolam in particular. They’ve noted that the overdose reversal agent naloxone does not combat the effects of a benzodiazepine overdose.

In December 2022, the Canadian province of New Brunswick said that bromazolam had been detected in nine sudden death investigations, and that fentanyl was detected in some of those cases. The provincial government of the Northwest Territories warned in May 2023 that bromazolam had been detected in the region’s drug supply and cautioned against combining it with opioids.

The Indiana Department of Health notified the public, first responders, law enforcement, and clinicians in August 2023 that the drug was increasingly being detected in the state. In the first half of the year, 35 people who had overdosed in Indiana tested positive for bromazolam. The state did not test for the presence of bromazolam before 2023.

According to the MMWR, the law enforcement seizures in the United States of bromazolam increased from no more than three per year during 2016-2018 to 2142 in 2022 and 2913 in 2023.

Illinois has been an area of increased use. Bromazolam-involved deaths increased from 10 in 2021 to 51 in 2022, the CDC researchers reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bromazolam, a street drug that has been detected with increasing frequency in the United States, has reportedly caused protracted seizures, myocardial injury, comas, and multiday intensive care stays in three individuals, new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed.

The substance is one of at least a dozen designer benzodiazepines created in the lab but not approved for any therapeutic use. The Center for Forensic Science Research and Education (CFSRE) reported that bromazolam was first detected in 2016 in recreational drugs in Europe and subsequently appeared in the United States.

It is sold under names such as “XLI-268,” “Xanax,” “Fake Xanax,” and “Dope.” Bromazolam may be sold in tablet or powder form, or sometimes as gummies, and is often taken with fentanyl by users.

The CDC report, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), described three cases of “previously healthy young adults,” two 25-year-old men and a 20-year-old woman, who took tablets believing it was alprazolam, when it was actually bromazolam and were found unresponsive.

They could not be revived with naloxone and continued to be unresponsive upon arrival at the emergency department. One of the men was hypertensive (152/100 mmHg), tachycardic (heart rate of 124 beats per minute), and hyperthermic (101.7 °F [38.7 °C]) and experienced multiple generalized seizures. He was intubated and admitted to intensive care.

The other man also had an elevated temperature (100.4 °F) and was intubated and admitted to the ICU because of unresponsiveness and multiple generalized seizures.

The woman was also intubated and nonresponsive with focal seizures. All three had elevated troponin levels and had urine tests positive for benzodiazepines.

The first man was intubated for 5 days and discharged after 11 days, while the second man was discharged on the fourth day with mild hearing difficulty.

The woman progressed to status epilepticus despite administration of multiple antiepileptic medications and was in a persistent coma. She was transferred to a second hospital after 11 days and was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Toxicology testing by the Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed the presence of bromazolam (range = 31.1-207 ng/mL), without the presence of fentanyl or any other opioid.

The CDC said that “the constellation of findings reported should prompt close involvement with public health officials and regional poison centers, given the more severe findings in these reported cases compared with those expected from routine benzodiazepine overdoses.” In addition, it noted that clinicians and first responders should “consider bromazolam in cases of patients requiring treatment for seizures, myocardial injury, or hyperthermia after illicit drug use.”
 

Surging Supply, Increased Warnings

In 2022, the CDC warned that the drug was surging in the United States, noting that as of mid-2022, bromazolam was identified in more than 250 toxicology cases submitted to NMS Labs, and that it had been identified in more than 190 toxicology samples tested at CFSRE.

In early 2021, only 1% of samples were positive for bromazolam. By mid-2022, 13% of samples were positive for bromazolam, and 75% of the bromazolam samples were positive for fentanyl.

The combination is sold on the street as benzo-dope.

Health authorities across the globe have been warning about the dangers of designer benzodiazepines, and bromazolam in particular. They’ve noted that the overdose reversal agent naloxone does not combat the effects of a benzodiazepine overdose.

In December 2022, the Canadian province of New Brunswick said that bromazolam had been detected in nine sudden death investigations, and that fentanyl was detected in some of those cases. The provincial government of the Northwest Territories warned in May 2023 that bromazolam had been detected in the region’s drug supply and cautioned against combining it with opioids.

The Indiana Department of Health notified the public, first responders, law enforcement, and clinicians in August 2023 that the drug was increasingly being detected in the state. In the first half of the year, 35 people who had overdosed in Indiana tested positive for bromazolam. The state did not test for the presence of bromazolam before 2023.

According to the MMWR, the law enforcement seizures in the United States of bromazolam increased from no more than three per year during 2016-2018 to 2142 in 2022 and 2913 in 2023.

Illinois has been an area of increased use. Bromazolam-involved deaths increased from 10 in 2021 to 51 in 2022, the CDC researchers reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Bromazolam, a street drug that has been detected with increasing frequency in the United States, has reportedly caused protracted seizures, myocardial injury, comas, and multiday intensive care stays in three individuals, new data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showed.

The substance is one of at least a dozen designer benzodiazepines created in the lab but not approved for any therapeutic use. The Center for Forensic Science Research and Education (CFSRE) reported that bromazolam was first detected in 2016 in recreational drugs in Europe and subsequently appeared in the United States.

It is sold under names such as “XLI-268,” “Xanax,” “Fake Xanax,” and “Dope.” Bromazolam may be sold in tablet or powder form, or sometimes as gummies, and is often taken with fentanyl by users.

The CDC report, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), described three cases of “previously healthy young adults,” two 25-year-old men and a 20-year-old woman, who took tablets believing it was alprazolam, when it was actually bromazolam and were found unresponsive.

They could not be revived with naloxone and continued to be unresponsive upon arrival at the emergency department. One of the men was hypertensive (152/100 mmHg), tachycardic (heart rate of 124 beats per minute), and hyperthermic (101.7 °F [38.7 °C]) and experienced multiple generalized seizures. He was intubated and admitted to intensive care.

The other man also had an elevated temperature (100.4 °F) and was intubated and admitted to the ICU because of unresponsiveness and multiple generalized seizures.

The woman was also intubated and nonresponsive with focal seizures. All three had elevated troponin levels and had urine tests positive for benzodiazepines.

The first man was intubated for 5 days and discharged after 11 days, while the second man was discharged on the fourth day with mild hearing difficulty.

The woman progressed to status epilepticus despite administration of multiple antiepileptic medications and was in a persistent coma. She was transferred to a second hospital after 11 days and was subsequently lost to follow-up.

Toxicology testing by the Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed the presence of bromazolam (range = 31.1-207 ng/mL), without the presence of fentanyl or any other opioid.

The CDC said that “the constellation of findings reported should prompt close involvement with public health officials and regional poison centers, given the more severe findings in these reported cases compared with those expected from routine benzodiazepine overdoses.” In addition, it noted that clinicians and first responders should “consider bromazolam in cases of patients requiring treatment for seizures, myocardial injury, or hyperthermia after illicit drug use.”
 

Surging Supply, Increased Warnings

In 2022, the CDC warned that the drug was surging in the United States, noting that as of mid-2022, bromazolam was identified in more than 250 toxicology cases submitted to NMS Labs, and that it had been identified in more than 190 toxicology samples tested at CFSRE.

In early 2021, only 1% of samples were positive for bromazolam. By mid-2022, 13% of samples were positive for bromazolam, and 75% of the bromazolam samples were positive for fentanyl.

The combination is sold on the street as benzo-dope.

Health authorities across the globe have been warning about the dangers of designer benzodiazepines, and bromazolam in particular. They’ve noted that the overdose reversal agent naloxone does not combat the effects of a benzodiazepine overdose.

In December 2022, the Canadian province of New Brunswick said that bromazolam had been detected in nine sudden death investigations, and that fentanyl was detected in some of those cases. The provincial government of the Northwest Territories warned in May 2023 that bromazolam had been detected in the region’s drug supply and cautioned against combining it with opioids.

The Indiana Department of Health notified the public, first responders, law enforcement, and clinicians in August 2023 that the drug was increasingly being detected in the state. In the first half of the year, 35 people who had overdosed in Indiana tested positive for bromazolam. The state did not test for the presence of bromazolam before 2023.

According to the MMWR, the law enforcement seizures in the United States of bromazolam increased from no more than three per year during 2016-2018 to 2142 in 2022 and 2913 in 2023.

Illinois has been an area of increased use. Bromazolam-involved deaths increased from 10 in 2021 to 51 in 2022, the CDC researchers reported.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The plant-based psychoactive compound ibogaine, combined with magnesium to protect the heart, is linked to improvement in severe psychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and functioning in veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI), early results from a small study showed.

“The most unique findings we observed are the improvements in disability and cognition. At the start of the study, participants had mild to moderate levels of disability. However, a month after treatment, their average disability rating indicated no disability and cognitive testing indicated improvements in concentration and memory,” study investigator Nolan Williams, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California, told this news organization.

Also noteworthy were improvements across all participants in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety — effects that lasted for at least 1 month after treatment, he said.

“These results are remarkable and exceeded our expectations. There is no drug today that can broadly relieve functional and neuropsychiatric symptoms of TBI as we observed with ibogaine,” Dr. Williams added.

The study was published online on January 5, 2024, in Nature Medicine.
 

‘The Storm Lifted’

Ibogaine is derived from the root bark of the Tabernanthe iboga shrub and related plants and is traditionally used in African spiritual and healing ceremonies.

It is known to interact with multiple neurotransmitter systems and has been studied primarily as a treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Some studies of ibogaine for SUDs have also noted improvements in self-reported measures of mood.

In the United States, ibogaine is classified as a Schedule I substance, but legal ibogaine treatments are offered in clinics in Canada and Mexico.

Dr. Williams noted that a handful of US veterans who went to Mexico for ibogaine treatment anecdotally reported improvements a variety of aspects of their lives.

The goal of the current study was to characterize those improvements with structured clinical and neurobiological assessments.

Participants included 30 US Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) with predominantly mild TBI from combat/blast exposures and psychiatric symptoms and functional limitations. All of them had independently scheduled themselves for treatment with magnesium and ibogaine at a clinic in Mexico.

Before treatment, the veterans had an average disability rating of 30.2 on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0, equivalent to mild to moderate disability. One month after ibogaine treatment, that rating improved to 5.1, indicating no disability, the researchers reported.

One month after treatment, participants also experienced average reductions of 88% in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms relative to before treatment.

Neuropsychological testing revealed improved concentration, information processing, memory, and impulsivity. There was also a substantial reduction in suicidal ideation.

“Before the treatment, I was living life in a blizzard with zero visibility and a cold, hopeless, listless feeling. After ibogaine, the storm lifted,” Sean, a 51-year-old veteran from Arizona with six combat deployments who participated in the study, said in a Stanford news release.

There were no serious side effects of ibogaine, and no instances of heart problems associated with the treatment.

Although the study findings are promising, additional research is needed to address some clear limitations, the researchers noted.

“Most importantly, the study was not controlled and so the relative contribution of any therapeutic benefits from non-ibogaine elements of the experience, such as complementary treatments, group activities, coaching, international travel, expectancy, or other nonspecific effects, cannot be determined,” they wrote.

In addition, follow-up was limited to 1 month, and longer-term data are needed to determine durability of the effects.

“We plan to study this compound further, as well as launch future studies to continue to understand how this drug can be used to treat TBI and possibly as a broader neuro-rehab drug. We will work towards a US-based set of trials to confirm efficacy with a multisite design,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Promising, but Very Preliminary

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Clinical TBI Research Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said the results are “promising, but very preliminary.”

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia noted that this was an open-label, nonrandomized study, early phase 2a study with “highly subjective outcome measures and the likelihood of it being a placebo effect is very high.”

Nonetheless, “there is a lot of interest in these ‘psychedelic’ alkaloids, and ibogaine is a good candidate for further study,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

Also providing perspective, Alan K. Davis, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, said “mounting evidence supports the importance of studying this treatment in rigorous clinical trials in the US.”

Dr. Davis and colleagues recently observed that treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics — ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT — was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed SOVs, as previously reported by this news organization.

This new study “basically is a replication of what we’ve already published on this topic, and we published data from much larger samples and longer follow up,” said Dr. Davis.

Dr. Davis said it’s “important for the public to know that there are important and serious risks associated with ibogaine therapy, including the possibility of cardiac problems and death. These risks are compounded when people are in clinics or settings where proper screening and medical oversight are not completed.”

“Furthermore, the long-term effectiveness of this treatment is not well established. It may only help in the short term for most people. For many, ongoing clinical aftercare therapy and other forms of treatment may be needed,” Dr. Davis noted.

The study was independently funded by philanthropic gifts from Steve and Genevieve Jurvetson and another anonymous donor. Williams is an inventor on a patent application related to the safety of MISTIC administration as described in the paper and a separate patent related to the use of ibogaine to treat disorders associated with brain aging. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The plant-based psychoactive compound ibogaine, combined with magnesium to protect the heart, is linked to improvement in severe psychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and functioning in veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI), early results from a small study showed.

“The most unique findings we observed are the improvements in disability and cognition. At the start of the study, participants had mild to moderate levels of disability. However, a month after treatment, their average disability rating indicated no disability and cognitive testing indicated improvements in concentration and memory,” study investigator Nolan Williams, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California, told this news organization.

Also noteworthy were improvements across all participants in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety — effects that lasted for at least 1 month after treatment, he said.

“These results are remarkable and exceeded our expectations. There is no drug today that can broadly relieve functional and neuropsychiatric symptoms of TBI as we observed with ibogaine,” Dr. Williams added.

The study was published online on January 5, 2024, in Nature Medicine.
 

‘The Storm Lifted’

Ibogaine is derived from the root bark of the Tabernanthe iboga shrub and related plants and is traditionally used in African spiritual and healing ceremonies.

It is known to interact with multiple neurotransmitter systems and has been studied primarily as a treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Some studies of ibogaine for SUDs have also noted improvements in self-reported measures of mood.

In the United States, ibogaine is classified as a Schedule I substance, but legal ibogaine treatments are offered in clinics in Canada and Mexico.

Dr. Williams noted that a handful of US veterans who went to Mexico for ibogaine treatment anecdotally reported improvements a variety of aspects of their lives.

The goal of the current study was to characterize those improvements with structured clinical and neurobiological assessments.

Participants included 30 US Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) with predominantly mild TBI from combat/blast exposures and psychiatric symptoms and functional limitations. All of them had independently scheduled themselves for treatment with magnesium and ibogaine at a clinic in Mexico.

Before treatment, the veterans had an average disability rating of 30.2 on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0, equivalent to mild to moderate disability. One month after ibogaine treatment, that rating improved to 5.1, indicating no disability, the researchers reported.

One month after treatment, participants also experienced average reductions of 88% in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms relative to before treatment.

Neuropsychological testing revealed improved concentration, information processing, memory, and impulsivity. There was also a substantial reduction in suicidal ideation.

“Before the treatment, I was living life in a blizzard with zero visibility and a cold, hopeless, listless feeling. After ibogaine, the storm lifted,” Sean, a 51-year-old veteran from Arizona with six combat deployments who participated in the study, said in a Stanford news release.

There were no serious side effects of ibogaine, and no instances of heart problems associated with the treatment.

Although the study findings are promising, additional research is needed to address some clear limitations, the researchers noted.

“Most importantly, the study was not controlled and so the relative contribution of any therapeutic benefits from non-ibogaine elements of the experience, such as complementary treatments, group activities, coaching, international travel, expectancy, or other nonspecific effects, cannot be determined,” they wrote.

In addition, follow-up was limited to 1 month, and longer-term data are needed to determine durability of the effects.

“We plan to study this compound further, as well as launch future studies to continue to understand how this drug can be used to treat TBI and possibly as a broader neuro-rehab drug. We will work towards a US-based set of trials to confirm efficacy with a multisite design,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Promising, but Very Preliminary

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Clinical TBI Research Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said the results are “promising, but very preliminary.”

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia noted that this was an open-label, nonrandomized study, early phase 2a study with “highly subjective outcome measures and the likelihood of it being a placebo effect is very high.”

Nonetheless, “there is a lot of interest in these ‘psychedelic’ alkaloids, and ibogaine is a good candidate for further study,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

Also providing perspective, Alan K. Davis, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, said “mounting evidence supports the importance of studying this treatment in rigorous clinical trials in the US.”

Dr. Davis and colleagues recently observed that treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics — ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT — was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed SOVs, as previously reported by this news organization.

This new study “basically is a replication of what we’ve already published on this topic, and we published data from much larger samples and longer follow up,” said Dr. Davis.

Dr. Davis said it’s “important for the public to know that there are important and serious risks associated with ibogaine therapy, including the possibility of cardiac problems and death. These risks are compounded when people are in clinics or settings where proper screening and medical oversight are not completed.”

“Furthermore, the long-term effectiveness of this treatment is not well established. It may only help in the short term for most people. For many, ongoing clinical aftercare therapy and other forms of treatment may be needed,” Dr. Davis noted.

The study was independently funded by philanthropic gifts from Steve and Genevieve Jurvetson and another anonymous donor. Williams is an inventor on a patent application related to the safety of MISTIC administration as described in the paper and a separate patent related to the use of ibogaine to treat disorders associated with brain aging. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The plant-based psychoactive compound ibogaine, combined with magnesium to protect the heart, is linked to improvement in severe psychiatric symptoms including depression, anxiety, and functioning in veterans with traumatic brain injury (TBI), early results from a small study showed.

“The most unique findings we observed are the improvements in disability and cognition. At the start of the study, participants had mild to moderate levels of disability. However, a month after treatment, their average disability rating indicated no disability and cognitive testing indicated improvements in concentration and memory,” study investigator Nolan Williams, MD, Stanford University, Stanford, California, told this news organization.

Also noteworthy were improvements across all participants in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety — effects that lasted for at least 1 month after treatment, he said.

“These results are remarkable and exceeded our expectations. There is no drug today that can broadly relieve functional and neuropsychiatric symptoms of TBI as we observed with ibogaine,” Dr. Williams added.

The study was published online on January 5, 2024, in Nature Medicine.
 

‘The Storm Lifted’

Ibogaine is derived from the root bark of the Tabernanthe iboga shrub and related plants and is traditionally used in African spiritual and healing ceremonies.

It is known to interact with multiple neurotransmitter systems and has been studied primarily as a treatment of substance use disorders (SUDs). Some studies of ibogaine for SUDs have also noted improvements in self-reported measures of mood.

In the United States, ibogaine is classified as a Schedule I substance, but legal ibogaine treatments are offered in clinics in Canada and Mexico.

Dr. Williams noted that a handful of US veterans who went to Mexico for ibogaine treatment anecdotally reported improvements a variety of aspects of their lives.

The goal of the current study was to characterize those improvements with structured clinical and neurobiological assessments.

Participants included 30 US Special Operations Forces veterans (SOVs) with predominantly mild TBI from combat/blast exposures and psychiatric symptoms and functional limitations. All of them had independently scheduled themselves for treatment with magnesium and ibogaine at a clinic in Mexico.

Before treatment, the veterans had an average disability rating of 30.2 on the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0, equivalent to mild to moderate disability. One month after ibogaine treatment, that rating improved to 5.1, indicating no disability, the researchers reported.

One month after treatment, participants also experienced average reductions of 88% in PTSD symptoms, 87% in depression symptoms, and 81% in anxiety symptoms relative to before treatment.

Neuropsychological testing revealed improved concentration, information processing, memory, and impulsivity. There was also a substantial reduction in suicidal ideation.

“Before the treatment, I was living life in a blizzard with zero visibility and a cold, hopeless, listless feeling. After ibogaine, the storm lifted,” Sean, a 51-year-old veteran from Arizona with six combat deployments who participated in the study, said in a Stanford news release.

There were no serious side effects of ibogaine, and no instances of heart problems associated with the treatment.

Although the study findings are promising, additional research is needed to address some clear limitations, the researchers noted.

“Most importantly, the study was not controlled and so the relative contribution of any therapeutic benefits from non-ibogaine elements of the experience, such as complementary treatments, group activities, coaching, international travel, expectancy, or other nonspecific effects, cannot be determined,” they wrote.

In addition, follow-up was limited to 1 month, and longer-term data are needed to determine durability of the effects.

“We plan to study this compound further, as well as launch future studies to continue to understand how this drug can be used to treat TBI and possibly as a broader neuro-rehab drug. We will work towards a US-based set of trials to confirm efficacy with a multisite design,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Promising, but Very Preliminary

Commenting on the study for this news organization, Ramon Diaz-Arrastia, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and director of the Clinical TBI Research Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, said the results are “promising, but very preliminary.”

Dr. Diaz-Arrastia noted that this was an open-label, nonrandomized study, early phase 2a study with “highly subjective outcome measures and the likelihood of it being a placebo effect is very high.”

Nonetheless, “there is a lot of interest in these ‘psychedelic’ alkaloids, and ibogaine is a good candidate for further study,” Dr. Diaz-Arrastia said.

Also providing perspective, Alan K. Davis, PhD, director of the Center for Psychedelic Drug Research and Education, Ohio State University, Columbus, said “mounting evidence supports the importance of studying this treatment in rigorous clinical trials in the US.”

Dr. Davis and colleagues recently observed that treatment with two naturally occurring psychedelics — ibogaine and 5-MeO-DMT — was associated with reduced depressive and anxiety symptoms in trauma-exposed SOVs, as previously reported by this news organization.

This new study “basically is a replication of what we’ve already published on this topic, and we published data from much larger samples and longer follow up,” said Dr. Davis.

Dr. Davis said it’s “important for the public to know that there are important and serious risks associated with ibogaine therapy, including the possibility of cardiac problems and death. These risks are compounded when people are in clinics or settings where proper screening and medical oversight are not completed.”

“Furthermore, the long-term effectiveness of this treatment is not well established. It may only help in the short term for most people. For many, ongoing clinical aftercare therapy and other forms of treatment may be needed,” Dr. Davis noted.

The study was independently funded by philanthropic gifts from Steve and Genevieve Jurvetson and another anonymous donor. Williams is an inventor on a patent application related to the safety of MISTIC administration as described in the paper and a separate patent related to the use of ibogaine to treat disorders associated with brain aging. Dr. Davis is a board member at Source Resource Foundation and a lead trainer at Fluence. Dr. Diaz-Arrastia has no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Zolpidem and behavior therapy significantly reduce daytime symptoms of insomnia such as fatigue, functional impairments, and depressive symptoms, data suggested.

In a randomized clinical trial of more than 200 patients with chronic insomnia, behavioral therapy was associated with a 4.7-point reduction in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) score. Zolpidem was associated with a 5.2-point reduction in this score.

“There may be some advantage to starting with behavioral intervention,” study author Charles Morin, PhD, Canada research chair in sleeping disorders at Laval University in Quebec City, told this news organization. “But by the same token, because it takes a bit more time to produce benefits, some patients quit too quickly. So, even if we want to minimize the use of medications because of potential side effects, there may be times where we need to use it.”

The results were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Different Treatment Options’

There is growing awareness that sleep is a critical pillar of good health that is just as important as good nutrition and exercise, said Dr. Morin. Clinicians thus need to pay more attention to the toll of poor sleep on physical and mental health, he added.

For the current study, the investigators randomly assigned 211 adults with chronic insomnia to behavioral therapy, which included sleep restriction and stimulus control procedures, or zolpidem (5-10 mg nightly) for 6 weeks. Participants who achieved insomnia remission by that point were followed for 12 months. Participants who did not achieve remission were randomly assigned to a second-stage psychological therapy or medication therapy (zolpidem or trazodone).

The outcome measures were daytime functional outcomes such as mood disturbances, fatigue, functional impairments of insomnia, and physical and mental health. The researchers assessed these outcomes at baseline, 6 weeks, the end of second-stage therapy, and 3- and 12-month follow-up visits.

Both initial treatments were associated with significant and equivalent reductions in depressive symptoms, fatigue, and functional impairments. Mean change in the Beck Depression Inventory-II was −3.5 for patients in the behavioral therapy arm and −4.3 for patients in the zolpidem arm. Mean change in the MFI score was −4.7 among patients who received behavioral therapy and −5.2 among those who received zolpidem. Mean change in the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, which measured functional impairments, was −5.0 for the behavioral therapy arm and −5.1 for the zolpidem arm.

In addition, both treatments were associated with improvements in mental health, as measured by the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Mean change in the mental health subscale of SF-36 was 3.5 points in the behavioral therapy arm and 2.5 points in the zolpidem arm.

Second-stage treatments were associated with further improvements, and these benefits were maintained throughout the 12 months of follow-up. These findings support adding a second treatment of insomnia as part of efforts to address daytime function, the authors wrote.

“If the first treatment doesn’t work, we should not stop there. There are different treatment options,” said Dr. Morin.

“Future developments of insomnia treatment strategies should take into account the daytime consequences of insomnia,” wrote the investigators. “Additional studies are needed to further investigate the potential benefits of switching treatment modalities and incorporating a therapeutic component that can address psychological and mood disturbances.”

The authors acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a control condition and by relatively small sample sizes for each treatment group, which may reduce the statistical power to detect more significant group differences. They also noted that only patients who did not achieve insomnia remission received second-stage therapy, but those who did achieve remission can still have residual daytime impairments (eg, fatigue and mood disturbances) that are associated with future relapse.
 

Compliance Needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jocelyn Y. Cheng, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and a researcher at the pharmaceutical firm Eisai, said that the research was designed well and used established and practical assessment tools. Cheng did not participate in the study.

In 2020, AASM published a clinical practice guideline on chronic insomnia disorder that strongly recommended cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some of the guideline’s authors, such as Dr. Morin, conducted the present study.

The current results offer reassurance about cases in which patients may prefer options other than CBT, said Cheng. Therapy and medication each appear to help reduce daytime outcomes of insomnia such as anxiety, she said.

Some patients are reluctant to try CBT, and others may not be able to find or participate in this kind of therapy because of other medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury. CBT “does require compliance and somebody willing to participate and also somebody able to participate,” said Cheng. “So, in that case, medication might be the better way to go [for the] first line.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Morin reported receiving grants and personal fees from Eisai and Idorsia, grants from Lallemand Health, and royalties from Mapi Research Trust outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Axsome Pharmaceutics, Attune, Harmony, Neurocrine Biosciences, Reveal Biosensors, the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund, and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Axsome Therapeutics, Big Health, Eisai, Evecxia, Harmony Biosciences, Idorsia, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Neurawell, Pernix, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sage, and Takeda; and stock options from Big Health and Neurawell outside the submitted work. Cheng reported no relevant financial relationships other than her employment by Eisai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Zolpidem and behavior therapy significantly reduce daytime symptoms of insomnia such as fatigue, functional impairments, and depressive symptoms, data suggested.

In a randomized clinical trial of more than 200 patients with chronic insomnia, behavioral therapy was associated with a 4.7-point reduction in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) score. Zolpidem was associated with a 5.2-point reduction in this score.

“There may be some advantage to starting with behavioral intervention,” study author Charles Morin, PhD, Canada research chair in sleeping disorders at Laval University in Quebec City, told this news organization. “But by the same token, because it takes a bit more time to produce benefits, some patients quit too quickly. So, even if we want to minimize the use of medications because of potential side effects, there may be times where we need to use it.”

The results were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Different Treatment Options’

There is growing awareness that sleep is a critical pillar of good health that is just as important as good nutrition and exercise, said Dr. Morin. Clinicians thus need to pay more attention to the toll of poor sleep on physical and mental health, he added.

For the current study, the investigators randomly assigned 211 adults with chronic insomnia to behavioral therapy, which included sleep restriction and stimulus control procedures, or zolpidem (5-10 mg nightly) for 6 weeks. Participants who achieved insomnia remission by that point were followed for 12 months. Participants who did not achieve remission were randomly assigned to a second-stage psychological therapy or medication therapy (zolpidem or trazodone).

The outcome measures were daytime functional outcomes such as mood disturbances, fatigue, functional impairments of insomnia, and physical and mental health. The researchers assessed these outcomes at baseline, 6 weeks, the end of second-stage therapy, and 3- and 12-month follow-up visits.

Both initial treatments were associated with significant and equivalent reductions in depressive symptoms, fatigue, and functional impairments. Mean change in the Beck Depression Inventory-II was −3.5 for patients in the behavioral therapy arm and −4.3 for patients in the zolpidem arm. Mean change in the MFI score was −4.7 among patients who received behavioral therapy and −5.2 among those who received zolpidem. Mean change in the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, which measured functional impairments, was −5.0 for the behavioral therapy arm and −5.1 for the zolpidem arm.

In addition, both treatments were associated with improvements in mental health, as measured by the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Mean change in the mental health subscale of SF-36 was 3.5 points in the behavioral therapy arm and 2.5 points in the zolpidem arm.

Second-stage treatments were associated with further improvements, and these benefits were maintained throughout the 12 months of follow-up. These findings support adding a second treatment of insomnia as part of efforts to address daytime function, the authors wrote.

“If the first treatment doesn’t work, we should not stop there. There are different treatment options,” said Dr. Morin.

“Future developments of insomnia treatment strategies should take into account the daytime consequences of insomnia,” wrote the investigators. “Additional studies are needed to further investigate the potential benefits of switching treatment modalities and incorporating a therapeutic component that can address psychological and mood disturbances.”

The authors acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a control condition and by relatively small sample sizes for each treatment group, which may reduce the statistical power to detect more significant group differences. They also noted that only patients who did not achieve insomnia remission received second-stage therapy, but those who did achieve remission can still have residual daytime impairments (eg, fatigue and mood disturbances) that are associated with future relapse.
 

Compliance Needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jocelyn Y. Cheng, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and a researcher at the pharmaceutical firm Eisai, said that the research was designed well and used established and practical assessment tools. Cheng did not participate in the study.

In 2020, AASM published a clinical practice guideline on chronic insomnia disorder that strongly recommended cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some of the guideline’s authors, such as Dr. Morin, conducted the present study.

The current results offer reassurance about cases in which patients may prefer options other than CBT, said Cheng. Therapy and medication each appear to help reduce daytime outcomes of insomnia such as anxiety, she said.

Some patients are reluctant to try CBT, and others may not be able to find or participate in this kind of therapy because of other medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury. CBT “does require compliance and somebody willing to participate and also somebody able to participate,” said Cheng. “So, in that case, medication might be the better way to go [for the] first line.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Morin reported receiving grants and personal fees from Eisai and Idorsia, grants from Lallemand Health, and royalties from Mapi Research Trust outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Axsome Pharmaceutics, Attune, Harmony, Neurocrine Biosciences, Reveal Biosensors, the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund, and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Axsome Therapeutics, Big Health, Eisai, Evecxia, Harmony Biosciences, Idorsia, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Neurawell, Pernix, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sage, and Takeda; and stock options from Big Health and Neurawell outside the submitted work. Cheng reported no relevant financial relationships other than her employment by Eisai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Zolpidem and behavior therapy significantly reduce daytime symptoms of insomnia such as fatigue, functional impairments, and depressive symptoms, data suggested.

In a randomized clinical trial of more than 200 patients with chronic insomnia, behavioral therapy was associated with a 4.7-point reduction in Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) score. Zolpidem was associated with a 5.2-point reduction in this score.

“There may be some advantage to starting with behavioral intervention,” study author Charles Morin, PhD, Canada research chair in sleeping disorders at Laval University in Quebec City, told this news organization. “But by the same token, because it takes a bit more time to produce benefits, some patients quit too quickly. So, even if we want to minimize the use of medications because of potential side effects, there may be times where we need to use it.”

The results were published in JAMA Network Open.
 

‘Different Treatment Options’

There is growing awareness that sleep is a critical pillar of good health that is just as important as good nutrition and exercise, said Dr. Morin. Clinicians thus need to pay more attention to the toll of poor sleep on physical and mental health, he added.

For the current study, the investigators randomly assigned 211 adults with chronic insomnia to behavioral therapy, which included sleep restriction and stimulus control procedures, or zolpidem (5-10 mg nightly) for 6 weeks. Participants who achieved insomnia remission by that point were followed for 12 months. Participants who did not achieve remission were randomly assigned to a second-stage psychological therapy or medication therapy (zolpidem or trazodone).

The outcome measures were daytime functional outcomes such as mood disturbances, fatigue, functional impairments of insomnia, and physical and mental health. The researchers assessed these outcomes at baseline, 6 weeks, the end of second-stage therapy, and 3- and 12-month follow-up visits.

Both initial treatments were associated with significant and equivalent reductions in depressive symptoms, fatigue, and functional impairments. Mean change in the Beck Depression Inventory-II was −3.5 for patients in the behavioral therapy arm and −4.3 for patients in the zolpidem arm. Mean change in the MFI score was −4.7 among patients who received behavioral therapy and −5.2 among those who received zolpidem. Mean change in the Work and Social Adjustment Scale, which measured functional impairments, was −5.0 for the behavioral therapy arm and −5.1 for the zolpidem arm.

In addition, both treatments were associated with improvements in mental health, as measured by the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Mean change in the mental health subscale of SF-36 was 3.5 points in the behavioral therapy arm and 2.5 points in the zolpidem arm.

Second-stage treatments were associated with further improvements, and these benefits were maintained throughout the 12 months of follow-up. These findings support adding a second treatment of insomnia as part of efforts to address daytime function, the authors wrote.

“If the first treatment doesn’t work, we should not stop there. There are different treatment options,” said Dr. Morin.

“Future developments of insomnia treatment strategies should take into account the daytime consequences of insomnia,” wrote the investigators. “Additional studies are needed to further investigate the potential benefits of switching treatment modalities and incorporating a therapeutic component that can address psychological and mood disturbances.”

The authors acknowledged that the study was limited by the lack of a control condition and by relatively small sample sizes for each treatment group, which may reduce the statistical power to detect more significant group differences. They also noted that only patients who did not achieve insomnia remission received second-stage therapy, but those who did achieve remission can still have residual daytime impairments (eg, fatigue and mood disturbances) that are associated with future relapse.
 

Compliance Needed

Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Jocelyn Y. Cheng, MD, vice chair of the public safety committee of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and a researcher at the pharmaceutical firm Eisai, said that the research was designed well and used established and practical assessment tools. Cheng did not participate in the study.

In 2020, AASM published a clinical practice guideline on chronic insomnia disorder that strongly recommended cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Some of the guideline’s authors, such as Dr. Morin, conducted the present study.

The current results offer reassurance about cases in which patients may prefer options other than CBT, said Cheng. Therapy and medication each appear to help reduce daytime outcomes of insomnia such as anxiety, she said.

Some patients are reluctant to try CBT, and others may not be able to find or participate in this kind of therapy because of other medical conditions such as traumatic brain injury. CBT “does require compliance and somebody willing to participate and also somebody able to participate,” said Cheng. “So, in that case, medication might be the better way to go [for the] first line.”

This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Morin reported receiving grants and personal fees from Eisai and Idorsia, grants from Lallemand Health, and royalties from Mapi Research Trust outside the submitted work. A coauthor reported receiving grants from Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Axsome Pharmaceutics, Attune, Harmony, Neurocrine Biosciences, Reveal Biosensors, the Ray and Dagmar Dolby Family Fund, and the National Institutes of Health; personal fees from Axsome Therapeutics, Big Health, Eisai, Evecxia, Harmony Biosciences, Idorsia, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Millenium Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Neurocrine Biosciences, Neurawell, Pernix, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals, Sage, and Takeda; and stock options from Big Health and Neurawell outside the submitted work. Cheng reported no relevant financial relationships other than her employment by Eisai.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Less than 2 minutes of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) targeting specific areas of the brain can boost an individual’s ability to be hypnotized, in new findings that could increase the efficacy of therapeutic hypnosis and expand the pool of patients who can benefit from it.

“We were able to increase hypnotizability, a neuropsychological trait previously shown to be as stable as IQ in adulthood,” said co-senior author David Spiegel, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

“Our findings would allow us to combine neurostimulation with hypnosis to expand the number of people able to benefit from hypnosis and enhance their responsiveness to treatment,” Dr. Spiegel added.

The study was published online on January 4, 2024, in Nature Mental Health.

A Breakthrough for Hypnotherapy?

Hypnosis has long been used to treat and manage a host of psychiatric and neurologic symptoms. However, not all patients respond equally to this therapy type.

About two thirds of the general adult population are estimated to be at least somewhat hypnotizable, and 15% are highly hypnotizable.

Through brain imaging, the Stanford team found that high hypnotizability is associated with greater functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.

In the double-blind study, they randomly assigned 80 patients (mean age, 48 years; 94% women) with fibromyalgia syndrome to active, or sham, continuous theta-burst stimulation over a personalized neuroimaging-derived left DLPFC target — a technique known as Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT). Individuals who were naturally highly hypnotizable were excluded.

“A novel aspect of this trial is that we used the person’s own brain networks, based on brain imaging, to target the right spot,” Co-senior author Nolan Williams, MD, with Stanford University, California, said in a news release.

The team chose patients with chronic pain because hypnosis has been shown to be a “highly effective analgesic that has a far better risk/benefit ratio than widely overutilized opioids that have serious fatal overdose potential,” Spiegel told this news organization.

The pre-to-post SHIFT change in hypnotic induction profile scores, a standardized measure of hypnotizability, was significantly greater in the active vs sham group after just 92 seconds of stimulation (P = .046).

Only the active SHIFT group showed a significant increase in hypnotizability following stimulation, an effect that lasted for about 1 hour.

“Increasing hypnotizability in people who are low-to-medium hypnotizable individuals could improve both the efficacy and effectiveness of therapeutic hypnosis as a clinical intervention,” the researchers wrote.

They note that because this was a “mechanistic study,” it did not explore the impact of increased hypnotizability on disease symptoms. They also note that further studies are needed to assess the dose-response relationships of SHIFT.

Transformative Research

“This line of research is fascinating,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist, and researcher in Boston, told this news organization.

“We are nearing an era of personalized, noninvasive brain modulation. The ability to individually modulate the DLPFC opens new possibilities for brain health beyond hypnotizability for fibromyalgia,” said Dr. Lakhan, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The DLPFC is involved in executive functions (and disorders) like attention (ADHD), emotional regulation (depression), motivation (schizophrenia), and impulse control (addiction),” he noted.

“Soon we may no longer need large expensive devices like transcranial magnetic stimulators as in this research study. Smartphones could deliver tailored digital therapeutics by engaging specific brain circuits,” Dr. Lakhan predicted.

“Imagine using an app to receive treatment customized to your unique brain and needs — all without anything implanted and delivered anywhere. The potential to precisely modulate the brain’s wiring to enhance cognition and mental health, without surgery or physical constraints, is incredibly promising. The possibilities are intriguing and could truly transform how we address brain diseases,” he added.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Williams is a named inventor on Stanford-owned intellectual property relating to accelerated TMS pulse pattern sequences and neuroimaging-based TMS targeting; has served on scientific advisory boards for Otsuka, NeuraWell, Magnus Medical, and Nooma as a paid advisor; and holds equity/stock options in Magnus Medical, NeuraWell, and Nooma. Dr. Spiegel is a cofounder of Reveri Health, Inc., an interactive hypnosis app (not utilized in the current study).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Less than 2 minutes of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) targeting specific areas of the brain can boost an individual’s ability to be hypnotized, in new findings that could increase the efficacy of therapeutic hypnosis and expand the pool of patients who can benefit from it.

“We were able to increase hypnotizability, a neuropsychological trait previously shown to be as stable as IQ in adulthood,” said co-senior author David Spiegel, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

“Our findings would allow us to combine neurostimulation with hypnosis to expand the number of people able to benefit from hypnosis and enhance their responsiveness to treatment,” Dr. Spiegel added.

The study was published online on January 4, 2024, in Nature Mental Health.

A Breakthrough for Hypnotherapy?

Hypnosis has long been used to treat and manage a host of psychiatric and neurologic symptoms. However, not all patients respond equally to this therapy type.

About two thirds of the general adult population are estimated to be at least somewhat hypnotizable, and 15% are highly hypnotizable.

Through brain imaging, the Stanford team found that high hypnotizability is associated with greater functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.

In the double-blind study, they randomly assigned 80 patients (mean age, 48 years; 94% women) with fibromyalgia syndrome to active, or sham, continuous theta-burst stimulation over a personalized neuroimaging-derived left DLPFC target — a technique known as Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT). Individuals who were naturally highly hypnotizable were excluded.

“A novel aspect of this trial is that we used the person’s own brain networks, based on brain imaging, to target the right spot,” Co-senior author Nolan Williams, MD, with Stanford University, California, said in a news release.

The team chose patients with chronic pain because hypnosis has been shown to be a “highly effective analgesic that has a far better risk/benefit ratio than widely overutilized opioids that have serious fatal overdose potential,” Spiegel told this news organization.

The pre-to-post SHIFT change in hypnotic induction profile scores, a standardized measure of hypnotizability, was significantly greater in the active vs sham group after just 92 seconds of stimulation (P = .046).

Only the active SHIFT group showed a significant increase in hypnotizability following stimulation, an effect that lasted for about 1 hour.

“Increasing hypnotizability in people who are low-to-medium hypnotizable individuals could improve both the efficacy and effectiveness of therapeutic hypnosis as a clinical intervention,” the researchers wrote.

They note that because this was a “mechanistic study,” it did not explore the impact of increased hypnotizability on disease symptoms. They also note that further studies are needed to assess the dose-response relationships of SHIFT.

Transformative Research

“This line of research is fascinating,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist, and researcher in Boston, told this news organization.

“We are nearing an era of personalized, noninvasive brain modulation. The ability to individually modulate the DLPFC opens new possibilities for brain health beyond hypnotizability for fibromyalgia,” said Dr. Lakhan, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The DLPFC is involved in executive functions (and disorders) like attention (ADHD), emotional regulation (depression), motivation (schizophrenia), and impulse control (addiction),” he noted.

“Soon we may no longer need large expensive devices like transcranial magnetic stimulators as in this research study. Smartphones could deliver tailored digital therapeutics by engaging specific brain circuits,” Dr. Lakhan predicted.

“Imagine using an app to receive treatment customized to your unique brain and needs — all without anything implanted and delivered anywhere. The potential to precisely modulate the brain’s wiring to enhance cognition and mental health, without surgery or physical constraints, is incredibly promising. The possibilities are intriguing and could truly transform how we address brain diseases,” he added.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Williams is a named inventor on Stanford-owned intellectual property relating to accelerated TMS pulse pattern sequences and neuroimaging-based TMS targeting; has served on scientific advisory boards for Otsuka, NeuraWell, Magnus Medical, and Nooma as a paid advisor; and holds equity/stock options in Magnus Medical, NeuraWell, and Nooma. Dr. Spiegel is a cofounder of Reveri Health, Inc., an interactive hypnosis app (not utilized in the current study).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Less than 2 minutes of transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) targeting specific areas of the brain can boost an individual’s ability to be hypnotized, in new findings that could increase the efficacy of therapeutic hypnosis and expand the pool of patients who can benefit from it.

“We were able to increase hypnotizability, a neuropsychological trait previously shown to be as stable as IQ in adulthood,” said co-senior author David Spiegel, MD, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.

“Our findings would allow us to combine neurostimulation with hypnosis to expand the number of people able to benefit from hypnosis and enhance their responsiveness to treatment,” Dr. Spiegel added.

The study was published online on January 4, 2024, in Nature Mental Health.

A Breakthrough for Hypnotherapy?

Hypnosis has long been used to treat and manage a host of psychiatric and neurologic symptoms. However, not all patients respond equally to this therapy type.

About two thirds of the general adult population are estimated to be at least somewhat hypnotizable, and 15% are highly hypnotizable.

Through brain imaging, the Stanford team found that high hypnotizability is associated with greater functional connectivity between the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex.

In the double-blind study, they randomly assigned 80 patients (mean age, 48 years; 94% women) with fibromyalgia syndrome to active, or sham, continuous theta-burst stimulation over a personalized neuroimaging-derived left DLPFC target — a technique known as Stanford Hypnosis Integrated with Functional Connectivity-targeted Transcranial Stimulation (SHIFT). Individuals who were naturally highly hypnotizable were excluded.

“A novel aspect of this trial is that we used the person’s own brain networks, based on brain imaging, to target the right spot,” Co-senior author Nolan Williams, MD, with Stanford University, California, said in a news release.

The team chose patients with chronic pain because hypnosis has been shown to be a “highly effective analgesic that has a far better risk/benefit ratio than widely overutilized opioids that have serious fatal overdose potential,” Spiegel told this news organization.

The pre-to-post SHIFT change in hypnotic induction profile scores, a standardized measure of hypnotizability, was significantly greater in the active vs sham group after just 92 seconds of stimulation (P = .046).

Only the active SHIFT group showed a significant increase in hypnotizability following stimulation, an effect that lasted for about 1 hour.

“Increasing hypnotizability in people who are low-to-medium hypnotizable individuals could improve both the efficacy and effectiveness of therapeutic hypnosis as a clinical intervention,” the researchers wrote.

They note that because this was a “mechanistic study,” it did not explore the impact of increased hypnotizability on disease symptoms. They also note that further studies are needed to assess the dose-response relationships of SHIFT.

Transformative Research

“This line of research is fascinating,” Shaheen Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist, and researcher in Boston, told this news organization.

“We are nearing an era of personalized, noninvasive brain modulation. The ability to individually modulate the DLPFC opens new possibilities for brain health beyond hypnotizability for fibromyalgia,” said Dr. Lakhan, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“The DLPFC is involved in executive functions (and disorders) like attention (ADHD), emotional regulation (depression), motivation (schizophrenia), and impulse control (addiction),” he noted.

“Soon we may no longer need large expensive devices like transcranial magnetic stimulators as in this research study. Smartphones could deliver tailored digital therapeutics by engaging specific brain circuits,” Dr. Lakhan predicted.

“Imagine using an app to receive treatment customized to your unique brain and needs — all without anything implanted and delivered anywhere. The potential to precisely modulate the brain’s wiring to enhance cognition and mental health, without surgery or physical constraints, is incredibly promising. The possibilities are intriguing and could truly transform how we address brain diseases,” he added.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Williams is a named inventor on Stanford-owned intellectual property relating to accelerated TMS pulse pattern sequences and neuroimaging-based TMS targeting; has served on scientific advisory boards for Otsuka, NeuraWell, Magnus Medical, and Nooma as a paid advisor; and holds equity/stock options in Magnus Medical, NeuraWell, and Nooma. Dr. Spiegel is a cofounder of Reveri Health, Inc., an interactive hypnosis app (not utilized in the current study).
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — People with epilepsy are more likely to decline cognitively compared with those without epilepsy, new research suggests.

Results of the large, longitudinal study show that seizures predicted earlier conversion time from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) but were not associated with conversion from MCI to dementia.

“Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes need to be treated more aggressively because they can impact cognition, but epilepsy is another risk factor that needs to be treated in a timely fashion because it appears to be also associated with cognitive impairment,” said study investigator Ifrah Zawar MD, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

The study (abstract #2.172) was presented on December 2 at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

An Understudied Issue

Comorbid seizures occur in up to 64% of those with dementia, and patients with dementia and epilepsy have a more aggressive disease course, faster cognitive decline, and more severe neuronal loss, Dr. Zawar told Medscape Medical News.

But the impact of seizures on the conversion of cognitively healthy to MCI and from MCI to dementia, after accounting for cardiovascular risk factors, has not been well studied.

Researchers analyzed longitudinal data of 13,726 patients, mean age about 70 years, who were cognitively healthy or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Participants were recruited from 39 Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) centers in the United States from 2005 to 2021. 

Investigators categorized participants into three groups: active (having had seizures in the past year and/or requiring active treatment; N = 118), resolved (not on any treatment for the past year and not having seizures; N = 226), and no seizures (never having had seizures; N = 13,382).

The primary outcome was conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI/dementia and from MCI to dementia in those with and without active epilepsy and resolved epilepsy.

Factors associated with conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI among those with current or active epilepsy included older age (P <.001 for ages 60-80 years and P =.002 for age 80 years or older vs younger than 60 years), male sex (P <.001), lower education (P <.001), hypertension (P <.001), and diabetes (P <.001).

The hazard ratio (HR) for earlier conversion from healthy to worse cognition among those with active epilepsy was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.38-2.24; P <.001), even after accounting for risk factors.

Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the median time to convert from healthy cognition to MCI among people with active epilepsy was about 5 years compared with about 9 years for those with resolved epilepsy and 10.5 years for those without epilepsy.

The story was similar for faster conversion from MCI to dementia. Compared with having no epilepsy, the HR for faster conversion for active epilepsy was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.20-1.73; P <.001).

In addition, the median time to conversion from MCI to dementia was about 3 years for those with active epilepsy compared with about 5 years for those with resolved epilepsy and about 5 years for those without epilepsy.

“It’s important for physicians to understand that uncontrolled epilepsy or active epilepsy is going to impact patients’ cognition adversely, which in itself is associated with increased comorbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Zawar.

The mechanism driving the acceleration to worse cognition in people with epilepsy is “complicated and involves a multitude of factors,” she said.

The researchers did not specifically investigate how use of antiseizure medications correlated with cognitive outcomes, but Dr. Zawar believes that “epilepsy in itself impacts cognition.”

The researchers also didn’t have EEG data for study participants who were recruited from Alzheimer’s disease centers where EEGs aren’t routinely carried out, so such data for many patients may not necessarily exist, said Dr. Zawar.
 

Important Research

Commenting for this news organization, Bruce Hermann, PhD, professor emeritus, Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,  said that the study is important because of the, “tremendous interest and concern about aging with epilepsy.”

“We want to know how people with chronic epilepsy age cognitively and what’s the cognitive course of those who have late onset epilepsy, particularly those with unknown etiology,” he added. 

Dr. Hermann noted that much of the research in this area has been relatively small and single-center investigations. 

“These larger-scale investigations from outside the epilepsy community are so important because they have data on large numbers of subjects, they have cognitive data, and follow-ups over long periods of time, and they’re providing some really novel information,” Dr. Hermann said. 

He added that terms used in the dementia world such as MCI and frank dementia are somewhat foreign to epileptologists. In addition, interventions to delay, treat, or prevent cognitive decline such as exercise, diet, social activity, and mental stimulation that are regularly discussed by dementia experts are underrepresented in the epilepsy world.

“The things they talk about in memory clinics in the aging world almost routinely have not penetrated to the epilepsy clinics for aging individuals and for the epilepsy community in general.”

The study used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to identify cognitive decline. “It would be nice to see how these people look with traditional neuropsychological tests,” said Dr. Hermann.

He added that information on the impact of epilepsy on different MCI phenotypes, for example, pure memory impairment subtype; pure nonmemory subtype; and multiple domain subtype, would also be useful.

The study was supported by the AES and the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Hermann report no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — People with epilepsy are more likely to decline cognitively compared with those without epilepsy, new research suggests.

Results of the large, longitudinal study show that seizures predicted earlier conversion time from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) but were not associated with conversion from MCI to dementia.

“Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes need to be treated more aggressively because they can impact cognition, but epilepsy is another risk factor that needs to be treated in a timely fashion because it appears to be also associated with cognitive impairment,” said study investigator Ifrah Zawar MD, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

The study (abstract #2.172) was presented on December 2 at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

An Understudied Issue

Comorbid seizures occur in up to 64% of those with dementia, and patients with dementia and epilepsy have a more aggressive disease course, faster cognitive decline, and more severe neuronal loss, Dr. Zawar told Medscape Medical News.

But the impact of seizures on the conversion of cognitively healthy to MCI and from MCI to dementia, after accounting for cardiovascular risk factors, has not been well studied.

Researchers analyzed longitudinal data of 13,726 patients, mean age about 70 years, who were cognitively healthy or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Participants were recruited from 39 Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) centers in the United States from 2005 to 2021. 

Investigators categorized participants into three groups: active (having had seizures in the past year and/or requiring active treatment; N = 118), resolved (not on any treatment for the past year and not having seizures; N = 226), and no seizures (never having had seizures; N = 13,382).

The primary outcome was conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI/dementia and from MCI to dementia in those with and without active epilepsy and resolved epilepsy.

Factors associated with conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI among those with current or active epilepsy included older age (P <.001 for ages 60-80 years and P =.002 for age 80 years or older vs younger than 60 years), male sex (P <.001), lower education (P <.001), hypertension (P <.001), and diabetes (P <.001).

The hazard ratio (HR) for earlier conversion from healthy to worse cognition among those with active epilepsy was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.38-2.24; P <.001), even after accounting for risk factors.

Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the median time to convert from healthy cognition to MCI among people with active epilepsy was about 5 years compared with about 9 years for those with resolved epilepsy and 10.5 years for those without epilepsy.

The story was similar for faster conversion from MCI to dementia. Compared with having no epilepsy, the HR for faster conversion for active epilepsy was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.20-1.73; P <.001).

In addition, the median time to conversion from MCI to dementia was about 3 years for those with active epilepsy compared with about 5 years for those with resolved epilepsy and about 5 years for those without epilepsy.

“It’s important for physicians to understand that uncontrolled epilepsy or active epilepsy is going to impact patients’ cognition adversely, which in itself is associated with increased comorbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Zawar.

The mechanism driving the acceleration to worse cognition in people with epilepsy is “complicated and involves a multitude of factors,” she said.

The researchers did not specifically investigate how use of antiseizure medications correlated with cognitive outcomes, but Dr. Zawar believes that “epilepsy in itself impacts cognition.”

The researchers also didn’t have EEG data for study participants who were recruited from Alzheimer’s disease centers where EEGs aren’t routinely carried out, so such data for many patients may not necessarily exist, said Dr. Zawar.
 

Important Research

Commenting for this news organization, Bruce Hermann, PhD, professor emeritus, Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,  said that the study is important because of the, “tremendous interest and concern about aging with epilepsy.”

“We want to know how people with chronic epilepsy age cognitively and what’s the cognitive course of those who have late onset epilepsy, particularly those with unknown etiology,” he added. 

Dr. Hermann noted that much of the research in this area has been relatively small and single-center investigations. 

“These larger-scale investigations from outside the epilepsy community are so important because they have data on large numbers of subjects, they have cognitive data, and follow-ups over long periods of time, and they’re providing some really novel information,” Dr. Hermann said. 

He added that terms used in the dementia world such as MCI and frank dementia are somewhat foreign to epileptologists. In addition, interventions to delay, treat, or prevent cognitive decline such as exercise, diet, social activity, and mental stimulation that are regularly discussed by dementia experts are underrepresented in the epilepsy world.

“The things they talk about in memory clinics in the aging world almost routinely have not penetrated to the epilepsy clinics for aging individuals and for the epilepsy community in general.”

The study used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to identify cognitive decline. “It would be nice to see how these people look with traditional neuropsychological tests,” said Dr. Hermann.

He added that information on the impact of epilepsy on different MCI phenotypes, for example, pure memory impairment subtype; pure nonmemory subtype; and multiple domain subtype, would also be useful.

The study was supported by the AES and the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Hermann report no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

ORLANDO — People with epilepsy are more likely to decline cognitively compared with those without epilepsy, new research suggests.

Results of the large, longitudinal study show that seizures predicted earlier conversion time from normal cognition to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) but were not associated with conversion from MCI to dementia.

“Modifiable cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension and diabetes need to be treated more aggressively because they can impact cognition, but epilepsy is another risk factor that needs to be treated in a timely fashion because it appears to be also associated with cognitive impairment,” said study investigator Ifrah Zawar MD, assistant professor, Department of Neurology, University of Virginia in Charlottesville.

The study (abstract #2.172) was presented on December 2 at the American Epilepsy Society annual meeting.
 

An Understudied Issue

Comorbid seizures occur in up to 64% of those with dementia, and patients with dementia and epilepsy have a more aggressive disease course, faster cognitive decline, and more severe neuronal loss, Dr. Zawar told Medscape Medical News.

But the impact of seizures on the conversion of cognitively healthy to MCI and from MCI to dementia, after accounting for cardiovascular risk factors, has not been well studied.

Researchers analyzed longitudinal data of 13,726 patients, mean age about 70 years, who were cognitively healthy or had mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Participants were recruited from 39 Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) centers in the United States from 2005 to 2021. 

Investigators categorized participants into three groups: active (having had seizures in the past year and/or requiring active treatment; N = 118), resolved (not on any treatment for the past year and not having seizures; N = 226), and no seizures (never having had seizures; N = 13,382).

The primary outcome was conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI/dementia and from MCI to dementia in those with and without active epilepsy and resolved epilepsy.

Factors associated with conversion from cognitively healthy to MCI among those with current or active epilepsy included older age (P <.001 for ages 60-80 years and P =.002 for age 80 years or older vs younger than 60 years), male sex (P <.001), lower education (P <.001), hypertension (P <.001), and diabetes (P <.001).

The hazard ratio (HR) for earlier conversion from healthy to worse cognition among those with active epilepsy was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.38-2.24; P <.001), even after accounting for risk factors.

Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the median time to convert from healthy cognition to MCI among people with active epilepsy was about 5 years compared with about 9 years for those with resolved epilepsy and 10.5 years for those without epilepsy.

The story was similar for faster conversion from MCI to dementia. Compared with having no epilepsy, the HR for faster conversion for active epilepsy was 1.44 (95% CI, 1.20-1.73; P <.001).

In addition, the median time to conversion from MCI to dementia was about 3 years for those with active epilepsy compared with about 5 years for those with resolved epilepsy and about 5 years for those without epilepsy.

“It’s important for physicians to understand that uncontrolled epilepsy or active epilepsy is going to impact patients’ cognition adversely, which in itself is associated with increased comorbidity and mortality,” said Dr. Zawar.

The mechanism driving the acceleration to worse cognition in people with epilepsy is “complicated and involves a multitude of factors,” she said.

The researchers did not specifically investigate how use of antiseizure medications correlated with cognitive outcomes, but Dr. Zawar believes that “epilepsy in itself impacts cognition.”

The researchers also didn’t have EEG data for study participants who were recruited from Alzheimer’s disease centers where EEGs aren’t routinely carried out, so such data for many patients may not necessarily exist, said Dr. Zawar.
 

Important Research

Commenting for this news organization, Bruce Hermann, PhD, professor emeritus, Department of Neurology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health,  said that the study is important because of the, “tremendous interest and concern about aging with epilepsy.”

“We want to know how people with chronic epilepsy age cognitively and what’s the cognitive course of those who have late onset epilepsy, particularly those with unknown etiology,” he added. 

Dr. Hermann noted that much of the research in this area has been relatively small and single-center investigations. 

“These larger-scale investigations from outside the epilepsy community are so important because they have data on large numbers of subjects, they have cognitive data, and follow-ups over long periods of time, and they’re providing some really novel information,” Dr. Hermann said. 

He added that terms used in the dementia world such as MCI and frank dementia are somewhat foreign to epileptologists. In addition, interventions to delay, treat, or prevent cognitive decline such as exercise, diet, social activity, and mental stimulation that are regularly discussed by dementia experts are underrepresented in the epilepsy world.

“The things they talk about in memory clinics in the aging world almost routinely have not penetrated to the epilepsy clinics for aging individuals and for the epilepsy community in general.”

The study used the Montreal Cognitive Assessment to identify cognitive decline. “It would be nice to see how these people look with traditional neuropsychological tests,” said Dr. Hermann.

He added that information on the impact of epilepsy on different MCI phenotypes, for example, pure memory impairment subtype; pure nonmemory subtype; and multiple domain subtype, would also be useful.

The study was supported by the AES and the Alzheimer’s Association. 

Dr. Zawar and Dr. Hermann report no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The mechanisms underlying poststroke depression (PSD), a common and debilitating complication of stroke, are unclear. Is it neurobiological, psychosocial, or both?

Two studies offer new insight into this question. In the first, investigators systematically reviewed studies comparing stroke and non-stroke participants with depression and found the groups were similar in most dimensions of depressive symptoms. But surprisingly, anhedonia was less severe in patients with PSD compared with non-stroke controls, and those with PSD also showed greater emotional dysregulation.

“Our findings support previous recommendations that clinicians should adapt the provision of psychological support to the specific needs and difficulties of stroke survivors,” said lead author Joshua Blake, DClinPsy, lecturer in clinical psychology, University of East Anglia, Norwich, United Kingdom.

The study was published online in Neuropsychology Review

A second study used a machine learning algorithm to analyze blood samples from adults who had suffered a stroke, determining whether plasma protein data could predict mood and identifying potential proteins associated with mood in these patients.

“We can now look at a stroke survivor’s blood and predict their mood,” senior author Marion Buckwalter, MD, PhD, professor of neurology and neurosurgery at Stanford Medicine, California, said in a news release. “This means there is a genuine association between what’s happening in the blood and what’s happening with a person’s mood. It also means that, down the road, we may be able to develop new treatments for PSD.”

The study was published in November 2023 in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity.
 

‘Surprising’ Findings

“There has long been uncertainty over whether PSD might differ in its causes, phenomenology, and treatability, due to the presence of brain injury, related biological changes, and the psychosocial context unique to this population,” Dr. Blake said. “We felt that understanding symptomatologic similarities and differences would constructively contribute to this debate.”

The researchers reviewed 12 papers that sampled both stroke and non-stroke participants. “We compared profiles of depression symptoms, correlation strengths of individual depression symptoms with general depression, and latent item severity,” Dr. Blake reported.

They extracted 38 symptoms from five standardized depression tools and then organized the symptoms into nine dimensions.

They found mostly nonsignificant differences between patients with PSD and non-stroke controls in most dimensions, including negative affect, negative cognitions, somatic features, anxiety/worry, and suicidal ideation. Those with PSD more frequently had cognitive impairment, and “work inhibition” was more common in PSD.

But the most striking finding was greater severity/prevalence of emotional dysregulation in PSD vs non-stroke depression and also less anhedonia.

Dr. Blake acknowledged being “surprised.”

One possible explanation is that stroke recovery “appears to be a highly emotional journey, with extreme findings of both positive and negative emotions reported by survivors as they psychologically adjust,” which might be protective against anhedonia, he suggested.

Moreover, neurologically driven emotional dysregulation “may similarly reduce experiences of anhedonia.”

However, there was a “considerable risk of bias in many of the included studies, meaning it’s important that these findings are experimentally confirmed before stronger conclusions about phenomenological differences can be drawn,” he cautioned.
 

Common, Undertreated

Dr. Buckwalter said her team was motivated to conduct the research because PSD is among the top problems reported by chronic stroke patients, and for most, it is not adequately treated.

However, “despite the high prevalence of PSD, it is very poorly studied in the chronic time period.” In particular, PSD isn’t “well understood at a molecular level.”

She added that inflammation is a “promising candidate” as a mechanism, since neuroinflammation occurs in the stroke scar for decades, and chronic peripheral inflammation can produce neuroinflammation. Aberrant immune activation has also been implicated in major depression without stroke. But large studies with broad panels of plasma biomarkers are lacking in PSD.

To address this gap, the researchers used a proteomic approach. They recruited 85 chronic stroke patients (mean age, 65 years [interquartile range, 55-71], 41.2% female, 65.9% White, 17.6% Asian, and 0% Black) from the Stanford Stroke Recovery Program. Participants were between 5 months and 9 years after an ischemic stroke.

They analyzed a comprehensive panel of 1196 proteins in plasma samples, applying a machine learning algorithm to see whether the plasma protein levels “could be used to predict mood scores, using either the proteomics data alone or adding age and time since stroke.” The proteomics data were then incorporated into multivariable regression models, along with relevant clinical features, to ascertain the model’s predictive ability.

Mood was assessed using the Stroke Impact Scale mood questionnaire, with participants’ mood dichotomized into better mood (> 63) or worse mood (≤ 63).
 

‘Beautiful Mechanistic Model’

Machine learning verified a relationship between plasma proteomic data and mood, with the most accurate prediction occurring when the researchers added age and time since the stroke to the analysis.

Independent univariate analyses identified 202 proteins that were most highly correlated with mood in PSD. These were then organized into functional groups, including immune proteins, integrins, growth factors, synaptic function proteins, serotonin activity-related proteins, and cell death and stress-related functional groupings.

Although no single protein could predict depression, significant changes in levels of several proteins were found in PSD patients. A high proportion (45%) were proteins previously implicated in major depression, “likely providing a link to the underlying mechanisms of chronic PSD,” the authors stated.

Moreover, 80% of correlated immune proteins were higher in the plasma of people with worse mood, and several immune proteins known to have anti-inflammatory effects were reduced in those with worse mood.

And several pro-inflammatory cytokines were implicated. For example, interleukin 6, which has been extensively studied as a potential plasma marker of major depression in non-stroke cohorts, was significantly elevated in patients with worse mood after stroke (P = .0325), «implicating a broadly overactive immune system in PSD.»

“We demonstrated for the first time that we can use plasma protein measurements to predict mood in people with chronic stroke,” Dr. Buckwalter summarized. “This means there is a biological correlate of mood but [it] doesn’t tell us causality.”

To tease out causality, the researchers used their own data, as well as information from a literature review of previous studies, to assemble a model of how the immune response following a stroke could change both serotonin and brain plasticity.

“We used the most highly correlated proteins to construct a beautiful mechanistic model of how poststroke depression may work and how it may relate to mechanisms in major depression,” Dr. Buckwalter said.

The model “posits an increased inflammatory response that leads to decreased tryptophan, serotonin, and less synaptic function, all of which contribute to symptoms of depression.”

Currently, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent the “best treatment” for people with PSD, but “unfortunately they don’t work for many patients,” Dr. Buckwalter noted. The findings “provide clues as to other molecular targets that are candidates novel therapies for poststroke depression.”

Dr. Blake commented that the proteomic study “complements the work by us and others interested in understanding PSD.”

Mood disorders “must be understood in terms of the dynamic relationships between structural neurological alterations, cellular and microbiological changes, psychological processes, and the person’s interactions with their social landscape,” Dr. Blake said.
 

New Treatments on the Horizon?

Gustavo C. Medeiros, MD, assistant professor, Department of Psychiatry, of the University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, said that knowing which individuals are more likely to develop PSD “allows treatment teams to implement earlier and more intensive interventions in those who are at higher risk.”

The findings [of the proteomic study] may also “help clarify the neurobiological correlates of PSD…[which] may help the development of new treatments that target these neurobiological changes,” said Dr. Medeiros, who wasn’t involved with either study.

However, he warned, “we should interpret their results with caution due to methodological reasons, including the relatively small sample size.”

Also commenting, Bruce Ovbiagele, MD, MSc, MAS, MBA, MLS, professor of neurology, UCSF Weill Institute for Neurosciences, California, said the proteomic study has some “clear limitations,” including the lack of Black or African American patients in the cohort, which limits generalizability, “since we know that Black and African American people are disproportionately affected by stroke and have very high rates of PSD and very severe presentation.”

The study by Dr. Blake et al. “was interesting because the phenotype of depressive symptoms after stroke differs from what’s seen in the general population, and the authors figured out a way to better understand the nuances of such differences,” said Dr. Ovbiagele, who wasn’t involved with either study.

He said he was also surprised by the finding regarding anhedonia and suggested that the findings be replicated in a study directly comparing patients with PSD and patients with depression from the general population.

The study by Bidoki et al. was funded by AHA/Paul Allen Foundation, the Leducq Stroke-IMPaCT Transatlantic Network of Excellence (MSB), the Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute (MSB), the Alfred E. Mann Foundation (NA), and an Alzheimer’s Association Research Fellowship to one of the authors. No source of funding was listed for the study by Dr. Blake et al. The authors of both studies, Dr. Medeiros and Dr. Ovbiagele, declare no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .

The FDA is formally looking into reports that some people who took popular diabetes and weight loss drugs had suicidal thoughts or two other health problems.

A new FDA report listed potential links between the medications and alopecia, aspiration, or suicidal ideation, CBS News reported. The investigation centers on reports of the health problems among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, some of which are Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and Zepbound. The drugs are used to treat diabetes and overweight or obesity.

An investigation by the FDA doesn’t mean that the FDA has concluded a risk exists, the FDA’s webpage for risk evaluation cautions.

“It means that FDA has identified a potential safety issue, but it does not mean that FDA has identified a causal relationship between the drug and the listed risk,” the FDA site states.

Possible next steps after an investigation could include updating drug labels with new information, putting a risk management plan in place to prevent or manage the health risks, or gathering more information.

“The FDA monitors the safety of drugs throughout their life cycle,” even after the drugs are approved. In addition, the FDA uses “surveillance and risk assessment programs to identify and evaluate adverse events that did not appear during the drug development process,” FDA spokesperson Chanapa Tantibanchachai said in an email published by multiple news outlets.

Although an investigation may lead to no changes in how a drug is regulated by the FDA, this isn’t the first time that the popular medicines have landed on the FDA’s radar for safety reevaluation. Last year, the label for the drug Ozempic was updated to acknowledge reports of intestinal obstructions, CBS News reported.

European regulators are also looking into reports of suicidal thoughts among people taking GLP-1 receptor agonists, although no link has been established.

Concerns about aspiration during surgery resulted in the American Society of Anesthesiologists advising in June that people should stop taking GLP-1 receptor agonists before they have elective surgeries.

“While there is currently a lack of scientific data on how GLP-1 receptor agonists affect patients having surgery and interact with anesthesia, we’ve received anecdotal reports that the delay in stomach emptying could be associated with an increased risk of regurgitation and aspiration of food into the airways and lungs during general anesthesia and deep sedation,” the society’s president, Michael W. Champeau, MD, said in a statement at the time.

According to CBS News, the FDA’s drug reporting system links the medications to 201 reports of suicide or suicidal ideation, 18 reports that mention aspiration, and 422 reports that mention alopecia.

Novo Nordisk, whose portfolio includes Wegovy and Ozempic, told CNN that it works with the FDA to monitor safety and is aware of the reports of side effects.

“Novo Nordisk stands behind the safety and efficacy of all of our GLP-1RA medicines when they are used as indicated and when they are taken under the care of a licensed healthcare professional,” the company said in a statement to CNN.

A spokesperson for Eli Lilly, which makes Mounjaro and Zepbound, told CBS News in a statement, “Currently, the FDA is reviewing data on certain potential risks for GLP-1 receptor agonist medicines. Patient safety is our priority, and we are collaborating with the FDA on these potential signals.”
 

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com .