User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
Transplant surgeon to 30,000 marathoners: Give me that liver
Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient
Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.
Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.
It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.
Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”
Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?
Avengers … Assemble.
Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change
The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.
Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?
Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.
Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.
Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know
As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.
A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.
Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.
Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.
Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.
Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.
Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient
Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.
Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.
It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.
Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”
Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?
Avengers … Assemble.
Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change
The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.
Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?
Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.
Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.
Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know
As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.
A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.
Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.
Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.
Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.
Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.
Surgeon goes the extra half mile for his patient
Sorry medical profession, but it’s Adam Bodzin’s world now. When a donor liver got stuck in the middle of the Philadelphia Half Marathon’s 30,000 participants, Dr. Bodzin, the transplant team’s lead surgeon, took matters into his own hands. And by hands, of course, we mean feet.
Still wearing his hospital scrubs, Dr. Bodzin ran more than half a mile to where the van carrying the liver was stranded, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. Fortunately, he was able to hitch a ride in a police car for the return trip and didn’t have to run back through the crowd carrying his somewhat unusual package. By package, of course, we mean human liver.
It’s been 3 months since the surgery/marathon and it’s still not clear why the driver had such trouble getting through – he had been trying for more than an hour and half by the time Dr. Bodzin reached him – but the surgery half of the big event was deemed a success and the patient has recovered.
Rick Hasz, president and chief executive officer of the Gift of Life Donor Program, which coordinates organ donation for transplants in the Philadelphia region, told the newspaper that “Dr. Bodzin’s quick action demonstrated his commitment to honoring the selfless generosity of all donors and their families and gives hope to everyone waiting for a second chance at life.”
Should Dr. Bodzin consider a step up from the transplant team to another group that’s fighting for the common good? The recipient of the liver in question seems to think so. “I guess he has a cape on under that white jacket,” 66-year-old Charles Rowe told Fox29. You already know where we’re going with this, right?
Avengers … Assemble.
Your spleen’s due for its 5,000-mile oil change
The human body is an incredible biological machine, capable of performing a countless array of tasks automatically and essentially without flaw, but there’s always room for improvement. After all, there are animals that can regrow entire missing limbs or live for up to 500 years. It would be nice if we could get some of that going.
Rather than any of that cool stuff, a recent survey of 2,000 average Americans revealed that our ambitions for improving the human body are a bit more mundane. The big thing that would make our lives better and easier, according to three-fourths of Americans, would be a built-in “check engine” light in our bodies. Come on guys, starfish can literally be cut in half and not only survive, but become two starfish. Mantis shrimp can punch with a force thousands of times their own weight. If we could punch like they could, we could literally break steel with our fists. Wouldn’t we rather have that?
Apparently not. Fine, we’ll stick with the check engine light.
Maybe it isn’t a huge surprise that we’d like the extra help in figuring out what our body needs. According to the survey, more than 60% of Americans struggle to identify when their body is trying to tell them something important, and only one-third actively checked in with their health every day. Considering about 40% said they feel tired for much of the day and nearly half reported not having a meal with fruits or vegetables in the past 3 days, perhaps a gentle reminder wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world.
So, if we did have a built-in check engine light, what would we use it for? A majority said they’d like to be reminded to drink a glass of water, with 45% saying they wanted to know when to take a nap. Feeling thirsty or tired isn’t quite enough, it seems.
Of course, the technology certainly exists to make the human check engine light a reality. An implanted microchip could absolutely tell us to drink a glass of water, but that would put our health in the hands of tech companies, and you just know Meta and Elon Muskrat wouldn’t pass up the chance for monetization. “Oh, sorry, we could have notified the hospital that you were about to have a heart attack, but you didn’t pay your life subscription this month.”
Sext offenders show more than their, well, you know
As we have become more and more attached to our phones, especially post pandemic, it’s no surprise that sexting – sending sexually explicit images and messages with those phones – has become a fairly common way for people to sexually communicate. And with dating apps just another venture in the dating landscape, regardless of age, sexting is an easy avenue to incite a mood without being physically present.
A recent study, though, has linked sexting with anxiety, sleep issues, depression, and compulsive sexual behaviors. Yikes.
Although the researchers noted that sexting was primarily reciprocal (sending and receiving), “over 50% of adults report sending a sext, while women are up to four times more likely than men to report having received nonconsensual sexts,” said Brenda K. Wiederhold, PhD, editor-in-chief of Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, which published the study, in which Dr. Wiederhold was not involved.
Among the 2,160 U.S. college students who were involved, participants who had only sent sexts reported more anxiety, depression, and sleep problems than other groups (no sexting, received only, reciprocal). There was also a possible connection between sexting, marijuana use, and compulsive sexual behavior, the investigators said in a written statement.
Considering the study population, these data are perhaps not that surprising. For young adults, to receive or send an elusive nude is as common as it once was to give someone flowers. Not that the two things elicit the same reactions. “Many individuals reveal they enjoy consensual sexting and feel it empowers them and builds self-confidence,” Dr. Wiederhold added.
Receiving a nonconsensual sext, though, is definitely going to result in feeling violated and super awkward. Senders beware: Don’t be surprised if you’re ghosted after that.
Beware risk of sedatives for respiratory patients
Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.
Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.
Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.
Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.
“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.
Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.
Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.
The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.
Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.
Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.
Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.
“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.
Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.
Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.
The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Both asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can be challenging to diagnose, and medication-driven episodes of sedation or hypoventilation are often overlooked as causes of acute exacerbations in these conditions, according to a letter published in The Lancet Respiratory Medicine.
write Christos V. Chalitsios, PhD, of the University of Nottingham, England, and colleagues.
The authors note that exacerbations are the main complications of both asthma and COPD, and stress the importance of identifying causes and preventive strategies.
Sedatives such as opioids have been shown to depress respiratory drive, reduce muscle tone, and increase the risk of pneumonia, they write. The authors also propose that the risk of sedative-induced aspiration or hypoventilation would be associated with medications including pregabalin, gabapentin, and amitriptyline.
Other mechanisms may be involved in the association between sedatives and exacerbations in asthma and COPD. For example, sedative medications can suppress coughing, which may promote airway mucous compaction and possible infection, the authors write.
Most research involving prevention of asthma and COPD exacerbations has not addressed the potential impact of sedatives taken for reasons outside of obstructive lung disease, the authors say.
“Although the risk of sedation and hypoventilation events are known to be increased by opioids and antipsychotic drugs, there has not been a systematic assessment of commonly prescribed medications with potential respiratory side-effects, including gabapentin, amitriptyline, and pregabalin,” they write.
Polypharmacy is increasingly common and results in many patients with asthma or COPD presenting for treatment of acute exacerbations while on a combination of gabapentin, pregabalin, amitriptyline, and opioids, the authors note; “however, there is little data or disease-specific guidance on how best to manage this problem, which often starts with a prescription in primary care,” they write. Simply stopping sedatives is not an option for many patients given the addictive nature of these drugs and the unlikely resolution of the condition for which the drugs were prescribed, the authors say. However, “cautious dose reduction” of sedatives is possible once patients understand the reason, they add.
Clinicians may be able to suggest reduced doses and alternative treatments to patients with asthma and COPD while highlighting the risk of respiratory depression and polypharmacy – “potentially reducing the number of exacerbations of obstructive lung disease,” the authors conclude.
The study received no outside funding. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Frequent cannabis use tied to coronary artery disease
In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.
In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.
Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.
“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.
“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.
“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.
“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.
“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.
“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
ASCVD risk
Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.
“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.
“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
‘All of Us’ observational study
In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.
They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.
There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.
Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.
Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.
The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
GWAS analyses
The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.
“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”
The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.
The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.
Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.
In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.
Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.
“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.
“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.
“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.
“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.
“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.
“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
ASCVD risk
Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.
“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.
“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
‘All of Us’ observational study
In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.
They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.
There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.
Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.
Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.
The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
GWAS analyses
The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.
“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”
The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.
The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.
Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In the first part, in an observational study, daily cannabis use was associated with 34% higher odds for CAD, compared with never-users, in a large population-based U.S. cohort. Less frequent use was not associated with increased odds for CAD.
In the second part, people with a genetic susceptibility to cannabis use disorder or severe cannabis dependency had an increased risk for CAD, compared with other people.
Ishan Paranjpe, MD, the study’s lead author, reported these results in a press briefing and will present the study at the upcoming joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation 2023.
“A couple of takeaway points are that daily cannabis use, but not less frequent cannabis use, was associated with CAD” in the large population-based cohort, said Dr. Paranjpe, a resident physician at Stanford (Calif.) University, during the press conference.
“This analysis was adjusted for several possible confounders including age, sex at birth, [body mass index (BMI)], race, education, cigarette use, hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes,” he noted, and even after accounting for these risk factors, the association with heart disease remained.
“And the next thing, using Mendelian randomization, we sort of implied that there might be a causal relationship between cannabis and heart disease. Importantly this effect is independent of alcohol and cigarette use.
“The notion that cannabis is completely benign is probably wrong, and there might be certain risk of certain cardiovascular effects of cannabis we should be more on the lookout for,” Dr. Paranjpe said in an interview.
“Our main conclusion was that prevalent CAD is associated with cannabis consumption,” he added. “Other mechanistic work published in Cell has also shown that cannabis causes vascular inflammation that may lead to CAD.
“Thus, there is growing evidence from both laboratory and population studies that cannabis consumption may be harmful for cardiovascular health,” he said. “However, we still need more work on whether it affects the risk of incident cardiovascular events (i.e., stroke, heart attack) in patient[s] with existing CAD.”
ASCVD risk
Invited to comment, Robert L. Page II, PharmD, chair of the writing group for the American Heart Association’s scientific statement Medical Marijuana, Recreational Cannabis, and Cardiovascular Health, published in 2020, said, “This adds to our hypothesis that if you are using marijuana over a longer period, greater exposure, you’re going to see an increase in the risk” for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
“We’re seeing this increased risk for ASCVD in young adults between ages 18 to 40 – people who think that they’re invincible,” Dr. Page, a professor at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, who was not involved with this research, told this news organization in an interview.
“The bottom line is that the risk that they are seeing is what has also been documented in other observational studies, and it adds fuel to the fire. We need to be paying close attention to this,” he said.
“Primary care [clinicians], cardiologists, need to address this, particularly in younger adults – because that’s where you’re seeing the highest amount of use.”
‘All of Us’ observational study
In the first part of the study, the researchers analyzed data from the “All of Us” cohort comprising adults age 18 and older from 340 inpatient and outpatient sites across the United States.
They identified 57,958 individuals who replied to a questionnaire asking about cannabis use (medicinal or recreational and whether it was edible or used by smoking or vaping) over the past 3 months.
There were 39,678 never-users, 8,749 who used it once or twice, 2,075 who used it monthly, 2,720 who used it weekly, and 4,736 who used it daily.
Of these, 3,506 individuals had CAD, based on medical records.
Only daily users had a significantly higher risk for CAD, compared with never-users (odds ratio, 1.34; P = .001) after adjusting for age, sex, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, BMI, education, insurance status, and cigarette use.
The median age for daily users was 41, whereas the median age for never-users was 59.
GWAS analyses
The researchers then performed a Mendelian randomization analysis based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of cannabis use disorder and of CAD.
“Cannabis use disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis of severe cannabis dependency, equivalent to ‘alcohol use disorder’ for alcohol consumption,” Dr. Paranjpe explained. “The exact definition involves frequent use leading to significant dependence (but does not specify how often it is used).”
The GWAS data for cannabis use disorder came from a recent meta-analysis of three cohorts: the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium Substance Use Disorders working group, iPSYCH, and deCODE.
The GWAS statistics for CAD were obtained from the CARDIoGRAMplusC4D Consortium.
Cannabis use disorder was associated with significantly increased odds for CAD (OR, 1.05; P = .001), which remained after adjusting for both cigarette and alcohol use (OR, 1.04).
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ACC 2023
Drug-resistant stomach bug infections on the rise: CDC
The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.
The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.
Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.
Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.
People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.
The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.
The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.
Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.
Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.
People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.
The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
The CDC issued the warning Feb. 24 about the rise in the problematic infections. Most of them have been seen in men who have sex with men, but a small number have also occurred in women and in young children.
The bacteria can be spread in a variety of ways, including changing the diaper of an infected baby, touching your mouth when the bacteria are on your hands, eating or drinking contaminated food or water, or through sexual contact. It’s easily transmitted because just a tiny amount of the bacteria is enough to make someone sick.
Shigella infection causes diarrhea that can be bloody. Other symptoms are a fever, belly cramping, and the feeling that you have to poop but your bowels are already empty. Most people recover on their own with rest and fluids, and severe cases can need antibiotic treatment. But strains of the bacteria that are resistant to treatment are on the rise.
Between 2015 and 2022, cases of antibiotic-resistant Shigella infection rose from 0% to 5% of all Shigella cases in the United States. One analysis showed that 82% of cases were in men, 13% in women, and 5% in children. A small sample of affected people provided information about their sexual activity, and 88% of them reported male-to-male sexual contact.
People at increased risk of infections are young children, people who are homeless, international travelers, people who have weakened immune systems, people living with HIV, and men who have sex with men.
The CDC asked health care workers to be on the lookout for these infections and report them.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Visual hallucinations: Differentiating psychiatric and neurologic causes
A visual hallucination is a visual percept experienced when awake that is not elicited by an external stimulus. Historically, hallucinations have been synonymous with psychiatric disease, most notably schizophrenia; however, over recent decades, hallucinations have been categorized based on their underlying etiology as psychodynamic (primary psychiatric), psychophysiologic (primary neurologic/structural), and psychobiochemical (neurotransmitter dysfunction).1 Presently, visual hallucinations are known to be caused by a wide variety of primary psychiatric, neurologic, ophthalmologic, and chemically-mediated conditions. Despite these causes, clinically differentiating the characteristics and qualities of visual hallucinations is often a lesser-known skillset among clinicians. The utility of this skillset is important for the clinician’s ability to differentiate the expected and unexpected characteristics of visual hallucinations in patients with both known and unknown neuropsychiatric conditions.
Though many primary psychiatric and neurologic conditions have been associated with and/or known to cause visual hallucinations, this review focuses on the following grouped causes:
- Primary psychiatric causes: psychiatric disorders with psychotic features and delirium; and
- Primary neurologic causes: neurodegenerative disease/dementias, seizure disorders, migraine disorders, vision loss, peduncular hallucinosis, and hypnagogic/hypnopompic phenomena.
Because the accepted definition of visual hallucinations excludes visual percepts elicited by external stimuli, drug-induced hallucinations would not qualify for either of these categories. Additionally, most studies reporting on the effects of drug-induced hallucinations did not control for underlying comorbid psychiatric conditions, dementia, or delirium, and thus the results cannot be attributed to the drug alone, nor is it possible to identify reliable trends in the properties of the hallucinations.2 The goals of this review are to characterize visual hallucinations experienced as a result of primary psychiatric and primary neurologic conditions and describe key grouping and differentiating features to help guide the diagnosis.
Visual hallucinations in the general population
A review of 6 studies (N = 42,519) reported that the prevalence of visual hallucinations in the general population is 7.3%.3 The prevalence decreases to 6% when visual hallucinations arising from physical illness or drug/chemical consumption are excluded. The prevalence of visual hallucinations in the general population has been associated with comorbid anxiety, stress, bereavement, and psychotic pathology.4,5 Regarding the age of occurrence of visual hallucinations in the general population, there appears to be a bimodal distribution.3 One peak appears in later adolescence and early adulthood, which corresponds with higher rates of psychosis, and another peak occurs late in life, which corresponds to a higher prevalence of neurodegenerative conditions and visual impairment.
Primary psychiatric causes
Most studies of visual hallucinations in primary psychiatric conditions have specifically evaluated patients with schizophrenia and mood disorders with psychotic features.6,7 In a review of 29 studies (N = 5,873) that specifically examined visual hallucinations in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, Waters et al3 found a wide range of reported prevalence (4% to 65%) and a weighted mean prevalence of 27%. In contrast, the prevalence of auditory hallucinations in these participants ranged from 25% to 86%, with a weighted mean of 59%.3
Hallucinations are a known but less common symptom of mood disorders that present with psychotic features.8 Waters et al3 also examined the prevalence of visual and auditory hallucinations in mood disorders (including mania, bipolar disorder, and depression) reported in 12 studies (N = 2,892).3 They found the prevalence of visual hallucinations in patients with mood disorders ranged from 6% to 27%, with a weighted mean of 15%, compared to the weighted mean of 28% who experienced auditory hallucinations. Visual hallucinations in primary psychiatric conditions are associated with more severe disease, longer hospitalizations, and poorer prognoses.9-11
Visual hallucinations of psychosis
In patients with psychotic symptoms, the characteristics of the visually hallucinated entity as well as the cognitive and emotional perception of the hallucinations are notably different than in patients with other, nonpsychiatric causes of visual hallucations.3
Continue to: Content and perceived physical properties
Content and perceived physical properties. Hallucinated entities are most often perceived as solid, 3-dimensional, well-detailed, life-sized people, animals, and objects (often fire) or events existing in the real world.3 The entity is almost always perceived as real, with accurate form and color, fine edges, and shadow; is often out of reach of the perceiver; and can be stationary or moving within the physical properties of the external environment.3
Timing and triggers. The temporal properties vary widely. Hallucinations can last from seconds to minutes and occur at any time of day, though by definition, they must occur while the individual is awake.3 Visual hallucinations in psychosis are more common during times of acute stress, strong emotions, and tiredness.3
Patient reaction and belief. Because of realistic qualities of the visual hallucination and the perception that it is real, patients commonly attempt to participate in some activity in relation to the hallucination, such as moving away from or attempting to interact with it.3 Additionally, patients usually perceive the hallucinated entity as uncontrollable, and are surprised when the entity appears or disappears. Though the content of the hallucination is usually impersonal, the meaning the patient attributes to the presence of the hallucinated entity is usually perceived as very personal and often requiring action. The hallucination may represent a harbinger, sign, or omen, and is often interpreted religiously or spiritually and accompanied by comorbid delusions.3
Visual hallucinations of delirium
Delirium is a syndrome of altered mentation—most notably consciousness, attention, and orientation—that occurs as a result of ≥1 metabolic, infectious, drug-induced, or other medical conditions and often manifests as an acute secondary psychotic illness.12 Multiple patient and environmental characteristics have been identified as risk factors for developing delirium, including multiple and/or severe medical illnesses, preexisting dementia, depression, advanced age, polypharmacy, having an indwelling urinary catheter, impaired sight or hearing, and low albumin levels.13-15 The development of delirium is significantly and positively associated with regular alcohol use, benzodiazepine withdrawal, and angiotensin receptor blocker and dopamine receptor agonist usage.15 Approximately 40% of patients with delirium have symptoms of psychosis, and in contrast to the hallucinations experienced by patients with schizophrenia, visual hallucinations are the most common type of hallucinations seen in delirium (27%).13 In a 2021 review that included 602 patients with delirium, Tachibana et al15 found that approximately 26% experienced hallucinations, 92% of which were visual hallucinations.
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Because of the limited attention and cognitive function of patients with delirium, less is known about the content of their visual hallucinations. However, much like those with primary psychotic symptoms, patients with delirium often report seeing complex, normal-sized, concrete entities, most commonly people. Tachibana et al15 found that the hallucinated person is more often a stranger than a familiar person, but (rarely) may be an ethereal being such as a devil or ghost. The next most common visually hallucinated entities were creatures, most frequently insects and animals. Other common hallucinations were visions of events or objects, such as fires, falling ceilings, or water. Similar to those with primary psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, patients with delirium often experience emotional distress, anxiety, fear, and confusion in response to the hallucinated person, object, and/or event.15
Continue to: Primary neurologic causes
Primary neurologic causes
Visual hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases
Patients with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) commonly experience hallucinations as a feature of their condition. However, the true cause of these hallucinations often cannot be directly attributed to any specific pathophysiology because these patients often have multiple coexisting risk factors, such as advanced age, major depressive disorder, use of neuroactive medications, and co-occurring somatic illness. Though the prevalence of visual hallucinations varies widely between studies, with 15% to 40% reported in patients with PD, the prevalence roughly doubles in patients with PD-associated dementia (30% to 60%), and is reported by 60% to 90% of those with DLB.16-18 Hallucinations are generally thought to be less common in Alzheimer disease; such patients most commonly experience visual hallucinations, although the reported prevalence ranges widely (4% to 59%).19,20 Notably, similarly to hallucinations experienced in patients with delirium, and in contrast to those with psychosis, visual hallucinations are more common than auditory hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases.20 Hallucinations are not common in individuals with CJD but are a key defining feature of the He
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Similar to the visual hallucinations experienced by patients with psychosis or delirium, those experienced in patients with PD, DLB, or CJD are often complex, most commonly of people, followed by animals and objects. The presence of “passage hallucinations”—in which a person or animal is seen in a patient’s peripheral vision, but passes out of their visual field before the entity can be directly visualized—is common.20 Those with PD also commonly have visual hallucinations in which the form of an object appears distorted (dysmorphopsia) or the color of an object appears distorted (metachromatopsia), though these would better be classified as illusions because a real object is being perceived with distortion.22
Hallucinations are more common in the evening and at night. “Presence hallucinations” are a common type of hallucination that cannot be directly related to a specific sensory modality such as vision, though they are commonly described by patients with PD as a seen or perceived image (usually a person) that is not directly in the individual’s visual field.17 These presence hallucinations are often described as being behind the patient or in a visualized scene of what was about to happen. Before developing the dementia and myoclonus also seen in sporadic CJD, patients with the Heidenhain variant of CJD describe illusions such as metachromatopsia, dysmorphia, and micropsia that eventually develop into frank visual hallucinations, which have been poorly reported in medical literature.22,23 There are no generalizable trends in the temporal nature of visual hallucinations in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. In most cases of visual hallucinations in patients with PD and dementia, insight relating to the perception varies widely based on the patient’s cognitive status. Subsequently, patients’ reactions to the hallucinations also vary widely.
Visual hallucinations in epileptic seizures
Occipital lobe epilepsies represent 1% to 4.6% of all epilepsies; however, these represent 20% to 30% of benign childhood partial epilepsies.24,25 These are commonly associated with various types of visual hallucinations depending upon the location of the seizure onset within the occipital lobe. These are referred to as visual auras.26 Visual auras are classified into simple visual hallucinations, complex visual hallucinations, visual illusions, and ictal amaurosis (hemifield blindness or complete blindness).
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Simple visual hallucinations are often described as brief, stereotypical flashing lights of various shapes and colors. These images may flicker, change shape, or take on a geometric or irregular pattern. Appearances can be repetitive and stereotyped, are often reported as moving horizontally from the periphery to the center of the visual field, and can spread to the entire visual field. Most often, these hallucinations occur for 5 to 30 seconds, and have no discernible provoking factors. Complex visual hallucinations consist of formed images of animals, people, or elaborate scenes. These are believed to reflect activation of a larger area of cortex in the temporo-parieto-occipital region, which is the visual association cortex. Very rarely, occipital lobe seizures can manifest with ictal amaurosis.24
Continue to: Simple visual auras...
Simple visual auras have a very high localizing value to the occipital lobe. The primary visual cortex (Brodmann area 17) is situated in the banks of calcarine fissure and activation of this region produces these simple hallucinations. If the hallucinations are consistently lateralized, the seizures are very likely to be coming from the contralateral occipital lobe.
Visual hallucinations in brain tumors
In general, a tumor anywhere along the optic path can produce visual hallucinations; however, the exact causal mechanism of the hallucinations is unknown. Moreover, tumors in different locations—namely the occipital lobes, temporal lobes, and frontal lobes—appear to produce visual hallucinations with substantially different characteristics.27-29 Further complicating the search for the mechanism of these hallucinations is the fact that tumors are epileptogenic. In addition, 36% to 48% of patients with brain tumors have mood symptoms (depression/mania), and 22% to 24% have psychotic symptoms (delusions/hallucinations); these symptoms are considerably location-dependent.30-32
Content and associated signs/symptoms. There are some grouped symptoms and/or hallucination characteristics associated with cerebral tumors in different lobes of the brain, though these symptoms are not specific. The visual hallucinations associated with brain tumors are typically confined to the field of vision that corresponds to the location of the tumor. Additionally, many such patients have a baseline visual field defect to some extent due to the tumor location.
In patients with occipital lobe tumors, visual hallucinations closely resemble those experienced in occipital lobe seizures, specifically bright flashes of light in colorful simple and complex shapes. Interestingly, those with occipital lobe tumors report xanthopsia, a form of chromatopsia in which objects in their field of view appear abnormally colored a yellowish shade.26,27
In patients with temporal lobe tumors, more complex visual hallucinations of people, objects, and events occurring around them are often accompanied by auditory hallucinations, olfactory hallucinations, and/or anosmia.28In those with frontal lobe tumors, similar complex visual hallucinations of people, objects, and events are seen, and olfactory hallucinations and/or anosmia are often experienced. However, these patients often have a lower likelihood of experiencing auditory hallucinations, and a higher likelihood of developing personality changes and depression than other psychotic symptoms. The visual hallucinations experienced in those with frontal lobe tumors are more likely to have violent content.29
Continue to: Visual hallucinations in migraine with aura
Visual hallucinations in migraine with aura
The estimated prevalence of migraine in the general population is 15% to 29%; 31% of those with migraine experience auras.33-35 Approximately 99% of those with migraine auras experience some type of associated visual phenomena.33,36 The pathophysiology of migraine is believed to be related to spreading cortical depression, in which a slowly propagating wave of neuroelectric depolarization travels over the cortex, followed by a depression of normal brain activity. Visual aura is thought to occur due to the resulting changes in cortical activity in the visual cortex; however, the exact electrophysiology of visual migraine aura is not entirely known.37,38 Though most patients with visual migraine aura experience simple visual hallucinations, complex hallucinations have been reported in the (very rare) cases of migraine coma and familial hemiplegic migraine.39
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The most common hallucinated entities reported by patients with migraine with aura are zigzag, flashing/sparkling, black and white curved figure(s) in the center of the visual field, commonly called a scintillating phosphene or scintillating scotoma.36 The perceived entity is often singular and gradually moves from the center to the periphery of the visual field. These visual hallucinations appear in front of all other objects in the visual field and do not interact with the environment or observer, or resemble or morph into any real-world objects, though they may change in contour, size, and color. The scintillating nature of the hallucination often resolves within minutes, usually leaving a scotoma, or area of vision loss, in the area, with resolution back to baseline vision within 1 hour. The straight, zigzag, and usually black-and-white nature of the scintillating phosphenes of migraine are in notable contrast to the colorful, often circular visual hallucinations experienced in patients with occipital lobe seizures.25
Visual hallucinations in peduncular hallucinosis
Peduncular hallucinosis is a syndrome of predominantly dreamlike visual hallucinations that occurs in the setting of lesions in the midbrain and/or thalamus.40 A recent review of the lesion etiology found that approximately 63% are caused by focal infarction and approximately 15% are caused by mass lesions; subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, and demyelination cause approximately 5% of cases each.40 Additionally, a review of the affected brainstem anatomy showed almost all lesions were found in the paramedian reticular formations of the midbrain and pons, with the vast majority of lesions affecting or adjacent to the oculomotor and raphe nuclei of the midbrain.39 Due to the commonly involved visual pathway, some researchers have suggested these hallucinations may be the result of a release phenomenon.39
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The visual hallucinations of peduncular hallucinosis usually start 1 to 5 days after the causal lesion forms, last several minutes to hours, and most stop after 1 to 3 weeks; however, cases of hallucinations lasting for years have been reported. These hallucinations have a diurnal pattern of usually appearing while the patient is resting in the evening and/or preparing for sleep. The characteristics of visual hallucinations vary widely from simple distortions in how real objects appear to colorful and vivid hallucinated events and people who can interact with the observer. The content of the visual hallucinations often changes in nature during the hallucination, or from one hallucination to the next. The hallucinated entities can be worldly or extraterrestrial. Once these patients fall asleep, they often have equally vivid and unusual dreams, with content similar to their visual hallucinations. Due to the anatomical involvement of the nigrostriatal pathway and oculomotor nuclei, co-occurring parkinsonism, ataxia, and oculomotor nerve palsy are common and can be a key clinical feature in establishing the diagnosis. Though patients with peduncular hallucinations commonly fear their hallucinations, they often eventually gain insight, which eases their anxiety.39
Other causes
Visual hallucinations in visual impairment
Visual hallucinations are a diagnostic requirement for Charles Bonnet syndrome, in which individuals with vision loss experience visual hallucinations in the corresponding field of vision loss.41 A lesion at any point in the visual pathway that produces visual loss can lead to Charles Bonnet syndrome; however, age-related macular degeneration is the most common cause.42 The hallucinations of Charles Bonnet syndrome are believed to be a release phenomenon, given the defective visual pathway and resultant dysfunction in visual processing. The prevalence of Charles Bonnet syndrome ranges widely by study. Larger studies report a prevalence of 11% to 27% in patients with age-related macular degeneration, depending on the severity of vision loss.43,44 Because there are many causes of Charles Bonnet syndrome, and because a recent study found that only 15% of patients with this syndrome told their eye care clinician and that 21% had not reported their hallucinatory symptoms to anyone, the true prevalence is unknown.42 Though the onset of visual hallucinations correlates with the onset of vision loss, there appears to be no association between the nature or complexity of the hallucinations and the severity or progression of the patient’s vision loss.45 Some studies have reported either the onset of or a higher frequency of visual hallucinations at a time of visual recovery (for example, treatment or exudative age-related macular degeneration), which suggests that hallucinations may be triggered by fluctuations in visual acuity.46,47 Additional risk factors for experiencing visual hallucinations in the setting of visual pathway deficit include a history of stroke, social isolation, poor cognitive function, poor lighting, and age ≥65.
Continue to: Content and associated signs/symptoms
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The visual hallucinations of patients with Charles Bonnet syndrome appear almost exclusively in the defective visual field. Images tend to be complex, colored, with moving parts, and appear in front of the patient. The hallucinations are usually of familiar or normal-appearing people or mundane objects, and as such, the patient often does not realize the hallucinated entity is not real. In patients without comorbid psychiatric disease, visual hallucinations are not accompanied by any other types of hallucinations. The most commonly hallucinated entities are people, followed by simple visual hallucinations of geometric patterns, and then by faces (natural or cartoon-like) and inanimate objects. Hallucinations most commonly occur daily or weekly, and upon waking. These hallucinations most often last several minutes, though they can last just a few seconds or for hours. Hallucinations are usually emotionally neutral, but most patients report feeling confused by their appearance and having a fear of underlying psychiatric disease. They often gain insight to the unreal nature of the hallucinations after counseling.48
Visual hallucinations at the sleep/wake interface
Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations are fleeting perceptual experiences that occur while an individual is falling asleep or waking, respectively.49 Because by definition visual hallucinations occur while the individual is fully awake, categorizing hallucination-like experiences such as hypnagogia and hypnopompia is difficult, especially since these are similar to other states in which alterations in perception are expected (namely a dream state). They are commonly associated with sleep disorders such as narcolepsy, cataplexy, and sleep paralysis.50,51 In a study of 13,057 individuals in the general population, Ohayon et al4 found the overall prevalence of hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations was 24.8% (5.3% visual) and 6.6% (1.5% visual), respectively. Approximately one-third of participants reported having experienced ≥1 hallucinatory experience in their lifetime, regardless of being asleep or awake.4 There was a higher prevalence of hypnagogic/hypnopompic experiences among those who also reported daytime hallucinations or other psychotic features.
Content and associated signs/symptoms. Unfortunately, because of the frequent co-occurrence of sleep disorders and psychiatric conditions, as well as the general paucity of research, it is difficult to characterize the visual phenomenology of hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations. Some evidence suggests the nature of the perception of the objects hallucinated is substantially impacted by the presence of preexisting psychotic symptoms. Insight into the reality of these hallucinations also depends upon the presence of comorbid psychiatric disease. Hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations are often described as complex, colorful, vivid, and dream-like, as if the patient was in a “half sleep” state.52 They are usually described as highly detailed events involving people and/or animals, though they may be grotesque in nature. Perceived entities are often described as undergoing a transformation or being mobile in their environment. Rarely do these perceptions invoke emotion or change the patient’s beliefs. Hypnagogia/hypnopompia also often have an auditory or haptic component to them. Visual phenomena can either appear to take place within an alternative background environment or appear superimposed on the patient’s actual physical environment.
How to determine the cause
In many of the studies cited in this review, the participants had a considerable amount of psychiatric comorbidity, which makes it difficult to discriminate between pure neurologic and pure psychiatric causes of hallucinations. Though the visual content of the hallucinations (people, objects, shapes, lights) can help clinicians broadly differentiate causes, many other characteristics of both the hallucinations and the patient can help determine the cause (Table3,4,12-39,41-52). The most useful characteristics for discerning the etiology of an individual’s visual hallucinations are the patient’s age, the visual field in which the hallucination occurs, and the complexity/simplicity of the hallucination.
Patient age. Hallucinations associated with primary psychosis decrease with age. The average age of onset of migraine with aura is 21. Occipital lobe seizures occur in early childhood to age 40, but most commonly occur in the second decade.32,36 No trend in age can be reliably determined in individuals who experience hypnagogia/hypnopompia. In contrast, other potential causes of visual hallucinations, such as delirium, neurodegenerative disease, eye disease, and peduncular hallucinosis, are more commonly associated with advanced age.
Continue to: The visual field(s)
The visual field(s) in which the hallucination occurs can help differentiate possible causes in patients with seizure, brain tumor, migraine, or visual impairment. In patients with psychosis, delirium, peduncular hallucinosis, or hypnagogia/hypnopompia, hallucinations can occur in any visual field. Those with neurodegenerative disease, particularly PD, commonly describe seeing so-called passage hallucinations and presence hallucinations, which occur outside of the patient’s direct vision. Visual hallucinations associated with seizure are often unilateral (homonymous left or right hemifield), and contralateral to the affected neurologic structures in the visual neural pathway; they start in the left or right peripheral vision and gradually move to the central visual field. In hallucinations experienced by patients with brain tumors, the hallucinated entities typically appear on the visual field contralateral to the underlying tumor. Visual hallucinations seen in migraine often include a figure that moves from central vision to more lateral in the visual field. The visual hallucinations seen in eye disease (namely Charles Bonnet syndrome) are almost exclusively perceived in the visual fields affected by decreased visual acuity, though non-side-locked visual hallucinations are common in patients with age-related macular degeneration.
Content and complexity. The visual hallucinations perceived in those with psychosis, delirium, neurodegenerative disease, and sleep disorders are generally complex. These hallucinations tend to be of people, animals, scenes, or faces and include color and associated sound, with moving parts and interactivity with either the patient or the environment. These are in contrast to the simple visual hallucinations of visual cortex seizures, brain tumors, and migraine aura, which are often reported as brightly colored or black/white lights, flashes, and shapes, with or without associated auditory, olfactory, or somatic sensation. Furthermore, hallucinations due to seizure and brain tumor (also likely due to seizure) are often of brightly colored shapes and lights with curved edges, while patients with migraine more commonly report singular sparkling black/white objects with straight lines.
Bottom Line
Though there are no features known to be specific to only 1 cause of visual hallucinations, some characteristics of both the patient and the hallucinations can help direct the diagnostic differential. The most useful characteristics are the patient’s age, the visual field in which the hallucination occurs, and the complexity/ simplicity of the hallucination.
Related Resources
- Wang J, Patel D, Francois D. Elaborate hallucinations, but is it a psychotic disorder? Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(2):46-50. doi:10.12788/cp.0091
- O’Brien J, Taylor JP, Ballard C, et al. Visual hallucinations in neurological and ophthalmological disease: pathophysiology and management. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020; 91(5):512-519. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-322702
1. Asaad G, Shapiro B. Hallucinations: theoretical and clinical overview. Am J Psychiatry. 1987;143(9):1088-1097.
2. Taam MA, Boissieu P, Taam RA, et al. Drug-induced hallucination: a case/non-case study in the French Pharmacovigilance Database. Article in French. Eur J Psychiatry. 2015;29(1):21-31.
3. Waters F, Collerton D, Ffytche DH, et al. Visual hallucinations in the psychosis spectrum and comparative information from neurodegenerative disorders and disease. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(Suppl 4):S233-S245.
4. Ohayon MM. Prevalence of hallucinations and their pathological associations in the general population. Psychiatry Res. 2000;97(2-3):153-164.
5. Rees WD. The hallucinations of widowhood. Br Med J. 1971;4(5778):37-41.
6. Delespaul P, deVries M, van Os J. Determinants of occurrence and recovery from hallucinations in daily life. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002;37(3):97-104.
7. Gauntlett-Gilbert J, Kuipers E. Phenomenology of visual hallucinations in psychiatric conditions. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2003;191(3):203-205.
8. Goodwin FK, Jamison KR. Manic Depressive Illness. Oxford University Press, Inc.; 1999.
9. Mueser KT, Bellack AS, Brady EU. Hallucinations in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1990;82(1):26-29.
10. McCabe MS, Fowler RC, Cadoret RJ, et al. Symptom differences in schizophrenia with good and bad prognosis. Am J Psychiatry. 1972;128(10):1239-1243.
11. Baethge C, Baldessarini RJ, Freudenthal K, et al. Hallucinations in bipolar disorder: characteristics and comparison to unipolar depression and schizophrenia. Bipolar Disord. 2005;7(2):136-145.
12. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
13. Ahmed S, Leurent B, Sampson EL. Risk factors for incident delirium among older people in acute hospital medical units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2014;43(3):326-333.
14. Webster R, Holroyd S. Prevalence of psychotic symptoms in delirium. Psychosomatics. 2000;41(6):519-522.
15. Tachibana M, Inada T, Ichida M, et al. Factors affecting hallucinations in patients with delirium. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):13005. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-92578-1
16. Fenelon G, Mahieux F, Huon R, et al. Hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease: prevalence, phenomenology and risk factors. Brain. 2000;123(Pt 4):733-745.
17. Papapetropoulos S, Argyriou AA, Ellul J. Factors associated with drug-induced visual hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol. 2005;252(10):1223-1228.
18. Williams DR, Warren JD, Lees AJ. Using the presence of visual hallucinations to differentiate Parkinson’s disease from atypical parkinsonism. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(6):652-655.
19. Linszen MMJ, Lemstra AW, Dauwan M, et al. Understanding hallucinations in probable Alzheimer’s disease: very low prevalence rates in a tertiary memory clinic. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2018;10:358-362.
20. Burghaus L, Eggers C, Timmermann L, et al. Hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2012;18(2):149-159.
21. Brar HK, Vaddigiri V, Scicutella A. Of illusions, hallucinations, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Heidenhain’s variant). J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005;17(1):124-126.
22. Sasaki C, Yokoi K, Takahashi H, et al. Visual illusions in Parkinson’s disease: an interview survey of symptomatology. Psychogeriatrics. 2022;22(1):28-48.
23. Kropp S, Schulz-Schaeffer WJ, Finkenstaedt M, et al. The Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Arch Neurol. 1999;56(1):55-61.
24. Taylor I, Scheffer IE, Berkovic SF. Occipital epilepsies: identification of specific and newly recognized syndromes. Brain. 2003;126(Pt 4):753-769.
25. Caraballo R, Cersosimo R, Medina C, et al. Panayiotopoulos-type benign childhood occipital epilepsy: a prospective study. Neurology. 2000;5(8):1096-1100.
26. Chowdhury FA, Silva R, Whatley B, et al. Localisation in focal epilepsy: a practical guide. Practical Neurol. 2021;21(6):481-491.
27. Horrax G, Putnam TJ. Distortions of the visual fields in cases of brain tumour: the field defects and hallucinations produced by tumours of the occipital lobe. Brain. 1932;55(4):499-523.
28. Cushing H. Distortions of the visual fields in cases of brain tumor (6th paper): the field defects produced by temporal lobe lesions. Brain. 1922;44(4):341-396.
29. Fornazzari L, Farcnik K, Smith I, et al. Violent visual hallucinations and aggression in frontal lobe dysfunction: clinical manifestations of deep orbitofrontal foci. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1992;4(1):42-44.
30. Madhusoodanan S, Opler MGA, Moise D, et al. Brain tumor location and psychiatric symptoms: is there an association? A meta-analysis of published cases studies. Expert Rev Neurother. 2010;10(10):1529-1536.
31. Madhusoodanan S, Sinha A, Moise D. Brain tumors and psychiatric manifestations: a review and analysis. Poster presented at: The American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry Annual Meeting; March 10-13; 2006; San Juan, Puerto Rico.
32. Madhusoodanan S, Danan D, Moise D. Psychiatric manifestations of brain tumors/gliomas. Rivistica Medica. 2007;13(4):209-215.
33. Kirchmann M. Migraine with aura: new understanding from clinical epidemiological studies. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:286-293.
34. Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine: current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(4):257-270.
35. Waters WE, O’Connor PJ. Prevalence of migraine. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1975;38(6):613-616.
36. Russell MB, Olesen J. A nosographic analysis of the migraine aura in a general population. Brain. 1996;119(Pt 2):355-361.
37. Cozzolino O, Marchese M, Trovato F, et al. Understanding spreading depression from headache to sudden unexpected death. Front Neurol. 2018;9:19.
38. Hadjikhani N, Sanchez del Rio M, Wu O, et al. Mechanisms of migraine aura revealed by functional MRI in human visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(8):4687-4692.
39. Manford M, Andermann F. Complex visual hallucinations. Clinical and neurobiological insights. Brain. 1998;121(Pt 10):1819-1840.
40. Galetta KM, Prasad S. Historical trends in the diagnosis of peduncular hallucinosis. J Neuroophthalmol. 2018;38(4):438-441.
41. Schadlu AP, Schadlu R, Shepherd JB III. Charles Bonnet syndrome: a review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(3):219-222.
42. Vukicevic M, Fitzmaurice K. Butterflies and black lace patterns: the prevalence and characteristics of Charles Bonnet hallucinations in an Australian population. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;36(7):659-665.
43. Teunisse RJ, Cruysberg JR, Verbeek A, et al. The Charles Bonnet syndrome: a large prospective study in the Netherlands. A study of the prevalence of the Charles Bonnet syndrome and associated factors in 500 patients attending the University Department of Ophthalmology at Nijmegen. Br J Psychiatry. 1995;166(2):254-257.
44. Holroyd S, Rabins PV, Finkelstein D, et al. Visual hallucination in patients with macular degeneration. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149(12):1701-1706.
45. Khan JC, Shahid H, Thurlby DA, et al. Charles Bonnet syndrome in age-related macular degeneration: the nature and frequency of images in subjects with end-stage disease. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15(3):202-208.
46. Cohen SY, Bulik A, Tadayoni R, et al. Visual hallucinations and Charles Bonnet syndrome after photodynamic therapy for age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(8):977-979.
47. Meyer CH, Mennel S, Horle S, et al. Visual hallucinations after intravitreal injection of bevacizumab in vascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):169-170.
48. Jan T, Del Castillo J. Visual hallucinations: Charles Bonnet syndrome. West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(6):544-547. doi:10.5811/westjem.2012.7.12891
49. Foulkes D, Vogel G. Mental activity at sleep onset. J Abnorm Psychol. 1965;70:231-243.
50. Mitler MM, Hajdukovic R, Erman M, et al. Narcolepsy. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1990;7(1):93-118.
51. Nishino S. Clinical and neurobiological aspects of narcolepsy. Sleep Med. 2007;8(4):373-399.
52. Schultz SK, Miller DD, Oliver SE, et al. The life course of schizophrenia: age and symptom dimensions. Schizophr Res. 1997;23(1):15-23.
A visual hallucination is a visual percept experienced when awake that is not elicited by an external stimulus. Historically, hallucinations have been synonymous with psychiatric disease, most notably schizophrenia; however, over recent decades, hallucinations have been categorized based on their underlying etiology as psychodynamic (primary psychiatric), psychophysiologic (primary neurologic/structural), and psychobiochemical (neurotransmitter dysfunction).1 Presently, visual hallucinations are known to be caused by a wide variety of primary psychiatric, neurologic, ophthalmologic, and chemically-mediated conditions. Despite these causes, clinically differentiating the characteristics and qualities of visual hallucinations is often a lesser-known skillset among clinicians. The utility of this skillset is important for the clinician’s ability to differentiate the expected and unexpected characteristics of visual hallucinations in patients with both known and unknown neuropsychiatric conditions.
Though many primary psychiatric and neurologic conditions have been associated with and/or known to cause visual hallucinations, this review focuses on the following grouped causes:
- Primary psychiatric causes: psychiatric disorders with psychotic features and delirium; and
- Primary neurologic causes: neurodegenerative disease/dementias, seizure disorders, migraine disorders, vision loss, peduncular hallucinosis, and hypnagogic/hypnopompic phenomena.
Because the accepted definition of visual hallucinations excludes visual percepts elicited by external stimuli, drug-induced hallucinations would not qualify for either of these categories. Additionally, most studies reporting on the effects of drug-induced hallucinations did not control for underlying comorbid psychiatric conditions, dementia, or delirium, and thus the results cannot be attributed to the drug alone, nor is it possible to identify reliable trends in the properties of the hallucinations.2 The goals of this review are to characterize visual hallucinations experienced as a result of primary psychiatric and primary neurologic conditions and describe key grouping and differentiating features to help guide the diagnosis.
Visual hallucinations in the general population
A review of 6 studies (N = 42,519) reported that the prevalence of visual hallucinations in the general population is 7.3%.3 The prevalence decreases to 6% when visual hallucinations arising from physical illness or drug/chemical consumption are excluded. The prevalence of visual hallucinations in the general population has been associated with comorbid anxiety, stress, bereavement, and psychotic pathology.4,5 Regarding the age of occurrence of visual hallucinations in the general population, there appears to be a bimodal distribution.3 One peak appears in later adolescence and early adulthood, which corresponds with higher rates of psychosis, and another peak occurs late in life, which corresponds to a higher prevalence of neurodegenerative conditions and visual impairment.
Primary psychiatric causes
Most studies of visual hallucinations in primary psychiatric conditions have specifically evaluated patients with schizophrenia and mood disorders with psychotic features.6,7 In a review of 29 studies (N = 5,873) that specifically examined visual hallucinations in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, Waters et al3 found a wide range of reported prevalence (4% to 65%) and a weighted mean prevalence of 27%. In contrast, the prevalence of auditory hallucinations in these participants ranged from 25% to 86%, with a weighted mean of 59%.3
Hallucinations are a known but less common symptom of mood disorders that present with psychotic features.8 Waters et al3 also examined the prevalence of visual and auditory hallucinations in mood disorders (including mania, bipolar disorder, and depression) reported in 12 studies (N = 2,892).3 They found the prevalence of visual hallucinations in patients with mood disorders ranged from 6% to 27%, with a weighted mean of 15%, compared to the weighted mean of 28% who experienced auditory hallucinations. Visual hallucinations in primary psychiatric conditions are associated with more severe disease, longer hospitalizations, and poorer prognoses.9-11
Visual hallucinations of psychosis
In patients with psychotic symptoms, the characteristics of the visually hallucinated entity as well as the cognitive and emotional perception of the hallucinations are notably different than in patients with other, nonpsychiatric causes of visual hallucations.3
Continue to: Content and perceived physical properties
Content and perceived physical properties. Hallucinated entities are most often perceived as solid, 3-dimensional, well-detailed, life-sized people, animals, and objects (often fire) or events existing in the real world.3 The entity is almost always perceived as real, with accurate form and color, fine edges, and shadow; is often out of reach of the perceiver; and can be stationary or moving within the physical properties of the external environment.3
Timing and triggers. The temporal properties vary widely. Hallucinations can last from seconds to minutes and occur at any time of day, though by definition, they must occur while the individual is awake.3 Visual hallucinations in psychosis are more common during times of acute stress, strong emotions, and tiredness.3
Patient reaction and belief. Because of realistic qualities of the visual hallucination and the perception that it is real, patients commonly attempt to participate in some activity in relation to the hallucination, such as moving away from or attempting to interact with it.3 Additionally, patients usually perceive the hallucinated entity as uncontrollable, and are surprised when the entity appears or disappears. Though the content of the hallucination is usually impersonal, the meaning the patient attributes to the presence of the hallucinated entity is usually perceived as very personal and often requiring action. The hallucination may represent a harbinger, sign, or omen, and is often interpreted religiously or spiritually and accompanied by comorbid delusions.3
Visual hallucinations of delirium
Delirium is a syndrome of altered mentation—most notably consciousness, attention, and orientation—that occurs as a result of ≥1 metabolic, infectious, drug-induced, or other medical conditions and often manifests as an acute secondary psychotic illness.12 Multiple patient and environmental characteristics have been identified as risk factors for developing delirium, including multiple and/or severe medical illnesses, preexisting dementia, depression, advanced age, polypharmacy, having an indwelling urinary catheter, impaired sight or hearing, and low albumin levels.13-15 The development of delirium is significantly and positively associated with regular alcohol use, benzodiazepine withdrawal, and angiotensin receptor blocker and dopamine receptor agonist usage.15 Approximately 40% of patients with delirium have symptoms of psychosis, and in contrast to the hallucinations experienced by patients with schizophrenia, visual hallucinations are the most common type of hallucinations seen in delirium (27%).13 In a 2021 review that included 602 patients with delirium, Tachibana et al15 found that approximately 26% experienced hallucinations, 92% of which were visual hallucinations.
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Because of the limited attention and cognitive function of patients with delirium, less is known about the content of their visual hallucinations. However, much like those with primary psychotic symptoms, patients with delirium often report seeing complex, normal-sized, concrete entities, most commonly people. Tachibana et al15 found that the hallucinated person is more often a stranger than a familiar person, but (rarely) may be an ethereal being such as a devil or ghost. The next most common visually hallucinated entities were creatures, most frequently insects and animals. Other common hallucinations were visions of events or objects, such as fires, falling ceilings, or water. Similar to those with primary psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, patients with delirium often experience emotional distress, anxiety, fear, and confusion in response to the hallucinated person, object, and/or event.15
Continue to: Primary neurologic causes
Primary neurologic causes
Visual hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases
Patients with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) commonly experience hallucinations as a feature of their condition. However, the true cause of these hallucinations often cannot be directly attributed to any specific pathophysiology because these patients often have multiple coexisting risk factors, such as advanced age, major depressive disorder, use of neuroactive medications, and co-occurring somatic illness. Though the prevalence of visual hallucinations varies widely between studies, with 15% to 40% reported in patients with PD, the prevalence roughly doubles in patients with PD-associated dementia (30% to 60%), and is reported by 60% to 90% of those with DLB.16-18 Hallucinations are generally thought to be less common in Alzheimer disease; such patients most commonly experience visual hallucinations, although the reported prevalence ranges widely (4% to 59%).19,20 Notably, similarly to hallucinations experienced in patients with delirium, and in contrast to those with psychosis, visual hallucinations are more common than auditory hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases.20 Hallucinations are not common in individuals with CJD but are a key defining feature of the He
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Similar to the visual hallucinations experienced by patients with psychosis or delirium, those experienced in patients with PD, DLB, or CJD are often complex, most commonly of people, followed by animals and objects. The presence of “passage hallucinations”—in which a person or animal is seen in a patient’s peripheral vision, but passes out of their visual field before the entity can be directly visualized—is common.20 Those with PD also commonly have visual hallucinations in which the form of an object appears distorted (dysmorphopsia) or the color of an object appears distorted (metachromatopsia), though these would better be classified as illusions because a real object is being perceived with distortion.22
Hallucinations are more common in the evening and at night. “Presence hallucinations” are a common type of hallucination that cannot be directly related to a specific sensory modality such as vision, though they are commonly described by patients with PD as a seen or perceived image (usually a person) that is not directly in the individual’s visual field.17 These presence hallucinations are often described as being behind the patient or in a visualized scene of what was about to happen. Before developing the dementia and myoclonus also seen in sporadic CJD, patients with the Heidenhain variant of CJD describe illusions such as metachromatopsia, dysmorphia, and micropsia that eventually develop into frank visual hallucinations, which have been poorly reported in medical literature.22,23 There are no generalizable trends in the temporal nature of visual hallucinations in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. In most cases of visual hallucinations in patients with PD and dementia, insight relating to the perception varies widely based on the patient’s cognitive status. Subsequently, patients’ reactions to the hallucinations also vary widely.
Visual hallucinations in epileptic seizures
Occipital lobe epilepsies represent 1% to 4.6% of all epilepsies; however, these represent 20% to 30% of benign childhood partial epilepsies.24,25 These are commonly associated with various types of visual hallucinations depending upon the location of the seizure onset within the occipital lobe. These are referred to as visual auras.26 Visual auras are classified into simple visual hallucinations, complex visual hallucinations, visual illusions, and ictal amaurosis (hemifield blindness or complete blindness).
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Simple visual hallucinations are often described as brief, stereotypical flashing lights of various shapes and colors. These images may flicker, change shape, or take on a geometric or irregular pattern. Appearances can be repetitive and stereotyped, are often reported as moving horizontally from the periphery to the center of the visual field, and can spread to the entire visual field. Most often, these hallucinations occur for 5 to 30 seconds, and have no discernible provoking factors. Complex visual hallucinations consist of formed images of animals, people, or elaborate scenes. These are believed to reflect activation of a larger area of cortex in the temporo-parieto-occipital region, which is the visual association cortex. Very rarely, occipital lobe seizures can manifest with ictal amaurosis.24
Continue to: Simple visual auras...
Simple visual auras have a very high localizing value to the occipital lobe. The primary visual cortex (Brodmann area 17) is situated in the banks of calcarine fissure and activation of this region produces these simple hallucinations. If the hallucinations are consistently lateralized, the seizures are very likely to be coming from the contralateral occipital lobe.
Visual hallucinations in brain tumors
In general, a tumor anywhere along the optic path can produce visual hallucinations; however, the exact causal mechanism of the hallucinations is unknown. Moreover, tumors in different locations—namely the occipital lobes, temporal lobes, and frontal lobes—appear to produce visual hallucinations with substantially different characteristics.27-29 Further complicating the search for the mechanism of these hallucinations is the fact that tumors are epileptogenic. In addition, 36% to 48% of patients with brain tumors have mood symptoms (depression/mania), and 22% to 24% have psychotic symptoms (delusions/hallucinations); these symptoms are considerably location-dependent.30-32
Content and associated signs/symptoms. There are some grouped symptoms and/or hallucination characteristics associated with cerebral tumors in different lobes of the brain, though these symptoms are not specific. The visual hallucinations associated with brain tumors are typically confined to the field of vision that corresponds to the location of the tumor. Additionally, many such patients have a baseline visual field defect to some extent due to the tumor location.
In patients with occipital lobe tumors, visual hallucinations closely resemble those experienced in occipital lobe seizures, specifically bright flashes of light in colorful simple and complex shapes. Interestingly, those with occipital lobe tumors report xanthopsia, a form of chromatopsia in which objects in their field of view appear abnormally colored a yellowish shade.26,27
In patients with temporal lobe tumors, more complex visual hallucinations of people, objects, and events occurring around them are often accompanied by auditory hallucinations, olfactory hallucinations, and/or anosmia.28In those with frontal lobe tumors, similar complex visual hallucinations of people, objects, and events are seen, and olfactory hallucinations and/or anosmia are often experienced. However, these patients often have a lower likelihood of experiencing auditory hallucinations, and a higher likelihood of developing personality changes and depression than other psychotic symptoms. The visual hallucinations experienced in those with frontal lobe tumors are more likely to have violent content.29
Continue to: Visual hallucinations in migraine with aura
Visual hallucinations in migraine with aura
The estimated prevalence of migraine in the general population is 15% to 29%; 31% of those with migraine experience auras.33-35 Approximately 99% of those with migraine auras experience some type of associated visual phenomena.33,36 The pathophysiology of migraine is believed to be related to spreading cortical depression, in which a slowly propagating wave of neuroelectric depolarization travels over the cortex, followed by a depression of normal brain activity. Visual aura is thought to occur due to the resulting changes in cortical activity in the visual cortex; however, the exact electrophysiology of visual migraine aura is not entirely known.37,38 Though most patients with visual migraine aura experience simple visual hallucinations, complex hallucinations have been reported in the (very rare) cases of migraine coma and familial hemiplegic migraine.39
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The most common hallucinated entities reported by patients with migraine with aura are zigzag, flashing/sparkling, black and white curved figure(s) in the center of the visual field, commonly called a scintillating phosphene or scintillating scotoma.36 The perceived entity is often singular and gradually moves from the center to the periphery of the visual field. These visual hallucinations appear in front of all other objects in the visual field and do not interact with the environment or observer, or resemble or morph into any real-world objects, though they may change in contour, size, and color. The scintillating nature of the hallucination often resolves within minutes, usually leaving a scotoma, or area of vision loss, in the area, with resolution back to baseline vision within 1 hour. The straight, zigzag, and usually black-and-white nature of the scintillating phosphenes of migraine are in notable contrast to the colorful, often circular visual hallucinations experienced in patients with occipital lobe seizures.25
Visual hallucinations in peduncular hallucinosis
Peduncular hallucinosis is a syndrome of predominantly dreamlike visual hallucinations that occurs in the setting of lesions in the midbrain and/or thalamus.40 A recent review of the lesion etiology found that approximately 63% are caused by focal infarction and approximately 15% are caused by mass lesions; subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, and demyelination cause approximately 5% of cases each.40 Additionally, a review of the affected brainstem anatomy showed almost all lesions were found in the paramedian reticular formations of the midbrain and pons, with the vast majority of lesions affecting or adjacent to the oculomotor and raphe nuclei of the midbrain.39 Due to the commonly involved visual pathway, some researchers have suggested these hallucinations may be the result of a release phenomenon.39
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The visual hallucinations of peduncular hallucinosis usually start 1 to 5 days after the causal lesion forms, last several minutes to hours, and most stop after 1 to 3 weeks; however, cases of hallucinations lasting for years have been reported. These hallucinations have a diurnal pattern of usually appearing while the patient is resting in the evening and/or preparing for sleep. The characteristics of visual hallucinations vary widely from simple distortions in how real objects appear to colorful and vivid hallucinated events and people who can interact with the observer. The content of the visual hallucinations often changes in nature during the hallucination, or from one hallucination to the next. The hallucinated entities can be worldly or extraterrestrial. Once these patients fall asleep, they often have equally vivid and unusual dreams, with content similar to their visual hallucinations. Due to the anatomical involvement of the nigrostriatal pathway and oculomotor nuclei, co-occurring parkinsonism, ataxia, and oculomotor nerve palsy are common and can be a key clinical feature in establishing the diagnosis. Though patients with peduncular hallucinations commonly fear their hallucinations, they often eventually gain insight, which eases their anxiety.39
Other causes
Visual hallucinations in visual impairment
Visual hallucinations are a diagnostic requirement for Charles Bonnet syndrome, in which individuals with vision loss experience visual hallucinations in the corresponding field of vision loss.41 A lesion at any point in the visual pathway that produces visual loss can lead to Charles Bonnet syndrome; however, age-related macular degeneration is the most common cause.42 The hallucinations of Charles Bonnet syndrome are believed to be a release phenomenon, given the defective visual pathway and resultant dysfunction in visual processing. The prevalence of Charles Bonnet syndrome ranges widely by study. Larger studies report a prevalence of 11% to 27% in patients with age-related macular degeneration, depending on the severity of vision loss.43,44 Because there are many causes of Charles Bonnet syndrome, and because a recent study found that only 15% of patients with this syndrome told their eye care clinician and that 21% had not reported their hallucinatory symptoms to anyone, the true prevalence is unknown.42 Though the onset of visual hallucinations correlates with the onset of vision loss, there appears to be no association between the nature or complexity of the hallucinations and the severity or progression of the patient’s vision loss.45 Some studies have reported either the onset of or a higher frequency of visual hallucinations at a time of visual recovery (for example, treatment or exudative age-related macular degeneration), which suggests that hallucinations may be triggered by fluctuations in visual acuity.46,47 Additional risk factors for experiencing visual hallucinations in the setting of visual pathway deficit include a history of stroke, social isolation, poor cognitive function, poor lighting, and age ≥65.
Continue to: Content and associated signs/symptoms
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The visual hallucinations of patients with Charles Bonnet syndrome appear almost exclusively in the defective visual field. Images tend to be complex, colored, with moving parts, and appear in front of the patient. The hallucinations are usually of familiar or normal-appearing people or mundane objects, and as such, the patient often does not realize the hallucinated entity is not real. In patients without comorbid psychiatric disease, visual hallucinations are not accompanied by any other types of hallucinations. The most commonly hallucinated entities are people, followed by simple visual hallucinations of geometric patterns, and then by faces (natural or cartoon-like) and inanimate objects. Hallucinations most commonly occur daily or weekly, and upon waking. These hallucinations most often last several minutes, though they can last just a few seconds or for hours. Hallucinations are usually emotionally neutral, but most patients report feeling confused by their appearance and having a fear of underlying psychiatric disease. They often gain insight to the unreal nature of the hallucinations after counseling.48
Visual hallucinations at the sleep/wake interface
Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations are fleeting perceptual experiences that occur while an individual is falling asleep or waking, respectively.49 Because by definition visual hallucinations occur while the individual is fully awake, categorizing hallucination-like experiences such as hypnagogia and hypnopompia is difficult, especially since these are similar to other states in which alterations in perception are expected (namely a dream state). They are commonly associated with sleep disorders such as narcolepsy, cataplexy, and sleep paralysis.50,51 In a study of 13,057 individuals in the general population, Ohayon et al4 found the overall prevalence of hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations was 24.8% (5.3% visual) and 6.6% (1.5% visual), respectively. Approximately one-third of participants reported having experienced ≥1 hallucinatory experience in their lifetime, regardless of being asleep or awake.4 There was a higher prevalence of hypnagogic/hypnopompic experiences among those who also reported daytime hallucinations or other psychotic features.
Content and associated signs/symptoms. Unfortunately, because of the frequent co-occurrence of sleep disorders and psychiatric conditions, as well as the general paucity of research, it is difficult to characterize the visual phenomenology of hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations. Some evidence suggests the nature of the perception of the objects hallucinated is substantially impacted by the presence of preexisting psychotic symptoms. Insight into the reality of these hallucinations also depends upon the presence of comorbid psychiatric disease. Hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations are often described as complex, colorful, vivid, and dream-like, as if the patient was in a “half sleep” state.52 They are usually described as highly detailed events involving people and/or animals, though they may be grotesque in nature. Perceived entities are often described as undergoing a transformation or being mobile in their environment. Rarely do these perceptions invoke emotion or change the patient’s beliefs. Hypnagogia/hypnopompia also often have an auditory or haptic component to them. Visual phenomena can either appear to take place within an alternative background environment or appear superimposed on the patient’s actual physical environment.
How to determine the cause
In many of the studies cited in this review, the participants had a considerable amount of psychiatric comorbidity, which makes it difficult to discriminate between pure neurologic and pure psychiatric causes of hallucinations. Though the visual content of the hallucinations (people, objects, shapes, lights) can help clinicians broadly differentiate causes, many other characteristics of both the hallucinations and the patient can help determine the cause (Table3,4,12-39,41-52). The most useful characteristics for discerning the etiology of an individual’s visual hallucinations are the patient’s age, the visual field in which the hallucination occurs, and the complexity/simplicity of the hallucination.
Patient age. Hallucinations associated with primary psychosis decrease with age. The average age of onset of migraine with aura is 21. Occipital lobe seizures occur in early childhood to age 40, but most commonly occur in the second decade.32,36 No trend in age can be reliably determined in individuals who experience hypnagogia/hypnopompia. In contrast, other potential causes of visual hallucinations, such as delirium, neurodegenerative disease, eye disease, and peduncular hallucinosis, are more commonly associated with advanced age.
Continue to: The visual field(s)
The visual field(s) in which the hallucination occurs can help differentiate possible causes in patients with seizure, brain tumor, migraine, or visual impairment. In patients with psychosis, delirium, peduncular hallucinosis, or hypnagogia/hypnopompia, hallucinations can occur in any visual field. Those with neurodegenerative disease, particularly PD, commonly describe seeing so-called passage hallucinations and presence hallucinations, which occur outside of the patient’s direct vision. Visual hallucinations associated with seizure are often unilateral (homonymous left or right hemifield), and contralateral to the affected neurologic structures in the visual neural pathway; they start in the left or right peripheral vision and gradually move to the central visual field. In hallucinations experienced by patients with brain tumors, the hallucinated entities typically appear on the visual field contralateral to the underlying tumor. Visual hallucinations seen in migraine often include a figure that moves from central vision to more lateral in the visual field. The visual hallucinations seen in eye disease (namely Charles Bonnet syndrome) are almost exclusively perceived in the visual fields affected by decreased visual acuity, though non-side-locked visual hallucinations are common in patients with age-related macular degeneration.
Content and complexity. The visual hallucinations perceived in those with psychosis, delirium, neurodegenerative disease, and sleep disorders are generally complex. These hallucinations tend to be of people, animals, scenes, or faces and include color and associated sound, with moving parts and interactivity with either the patient or the environment. These are in contrast to the simple visual hallucinations of visual cortex seizures, brain tumors, and migraine aura, which are often reported as brightly colored or black/white lights, flashes, and shapes, with or without associated auditory, olfactory, or somatic sensation. Furthermore, hallucinations due to seizure and brain tumor (also likely due to seizure) are often of brightly colored shapes and lights with curved edges, while patients with migraine more commonly report singular sparkling black/white objects with straight lines.
Bottom Line
Though there are no features known to be specific to only 1 cause of visual hallucinations, some characteristics of both the patient and the hallucinations can help direct the diagnostic differential. The most useful characteristics are the patient’s age, the visual field in which the hallucination occurs, and the complexity/ simplicity of the hallucination.
Related Resources
- Wang J, Patel D, Francois D. Elaborate hallucinations, but is it a psychotic disorder? Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(2):46-50. doi:10.12788/cp.0091
- O’Brien J, Taylor JP, Ballard C, et al. Visual hallucinations in neurological and ophthalmological disease: pathophysiology and management. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020; 91(5):512-519. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-322702
A visual hallucination is a visual percept experienced when awake that is not elicited by an external stimulus. Historically, hallucinations have been synonymous with psychiatric disease, most notably schizophrenia; however, over recent decades, hallucinations have been categorized based on their underlying etiology as psychodynamic (primary psychiatric), psychophysiologic (primary neurologic/structural), and psychobiochemical (neurotransmitter dysfunction).1 Presently, visual hallucinations are known to be caused by a wide variety of primary psychiatric, neurologic, ophthalmologic, and chemically-mediated conditions. Despite these causes, clinically differentiating the characteristics and qualities of visual hallucinations is often a lesser-known skillset among clinicians. The utility of this skillset is important for the clinician’s ability to differentiate the expected and unexpected characteristics of visual hallucinations in patients with both known and unknown neuropsychiatric conditions.
Though many primary psychiatric and neurologic conditions have been associated with and/or known to cause visual hallucinations, this review focuses on the following grouped causes:
- Primary psychiatric causes: psychiatric disorders with psychotic features and delirium; and
- Primary neurologic causes: neurodegenerative disease/dementias, seizure disorders, migraine disorders, vision loss, peduncular hallucinosis, and hypnagogic/hypnopompic phenomena.
Because the accepted definition of visual hallucinations excludes visual percepts elicited by external stimuli, drug-induced hallucinations would not qualify for either of these categories. Additionally, most studies reporting on the effects of drug-induced hallucinations did not control for underlying comorbid psychiatric conditions, dementia, or delirium, and thus the results cannot be attributed to the drug alone, nor is it possible to identify reliable trends in the properties of the hallucinations.2 The goals of this review are to characterize visual hallucinations experienced as a result of primary psychiatric and primary neurologic conditions and describe key grouping and differentiating features to help guide the diagnosis.
Visual hallucinations in the general population
A review of 6 studies (N = 42,519) reported that the prevalence of visual hallucinations in the general population is 7.3%.3 The prevalence decreases to 6% when visual hallucinations arising from physical illness or drug/chemical consumption are excluded. The prevalence of visual hallucinations in the general population has been associated with comorbid anxiety, stress, bereavement, and psychotic pathology.4,5 Regarding the age of occurrence of visual hallucinations in the general population, there appears to be a bimodal distribution.3 One peak appears in later adolescence and early adulthood, which corresponds with higher rates of psychosis, and another peak occurs late in life, which corresponds to a higher prevalence of neurodegenerative conditions and visual impairment.
Primary psychiatric causes
Most studies of visual hallucinations in primary psychiatric conditions have specifically evaluated patients with schizophrenia and mood disorders with psychotic features.6,7 In a review of 29 studies (N = 5,873) that specifically examined visual hallucinations in individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, Waters et al3 found a wide range of reported prevalence (4% to 65%) and a weighted mean prevalence of 27%. In contrast, the prevalence of auditory hallucinations in these participants ranged from 25% to 86%, with a weighted mean of 59%.3
Hallucinations are a known but less common symptom of mood disorders that present with psychotic features.8 Waters et al3 also examined the prevalence of visual and auditory hallucinations in mood disorders (including mania, bipolar disorder, and depression) reported in 12 studies (N = 2,892).3 They found the prevalence of visual hallucinations in patients with mood disorders ranged from 6% to 27%, with a weighted mean of 15%, compared to the weighted mean of 28% who experienced auditory hallucinations. Visual hallucinations in primary psychiatric conditions are associated with more severe disease, longer hospitalizations, and poorer prognoses.9-11
Visual hallucinations of psychosis
In patients with psychotic symptoms, the characteristics of the visually hallucinated entity as well as the cognitive and emotional perception of the hallucinations are notably different than in patients with other, nonpsychiatric causes of visual hallucations.3
Continue to: Content and perceived physical properties
Content and perceived physical properties. Hallucinated entities are most often perceived as solid, 3-dimensional, well-detailed, life-sized people, animals, and objects (often fire) or events existing in the real world.3 The entity is almost always perceived as real, with accurate form and color, fine edges, and shadow; is often out of reach of the perceiver; and can be stationary or moving within the physical properties of the external environment.3
Timing and triggers. The temporal properties vary widely. Hallucinations can last from seconds to minutes and occur at any time of day, though by definition, they must occur while the individual is awake.3 Visual hallucinations in psychosis are more common during times of acute stress, strong emotions, and tiredness.3
Patient reaction and belief. Because of realistic qualities of the visual hallucination and the perception that it is real, patients commonly attempt to participate in some activity in relation to the hallucination, such as moving away from or attempting to interact with it.3 Additionally, patients usually perceive the hallucinated entity as uncontrollable, and are surprised when the entity appears or disappears. Though the content of the hallucination is usually impersonal, the meaning the patient attributes to the presence of the hallucinated entity is usually perceived as very personal and often requiring action. The hallucination may represent a harbinger, sign, or omen, and is often interpreted religiously or spiritually and accompanied by comorbid delusions.3
Visual hallucinations of delirium
Delirium is a syndrome of altered mentation—most notably consciousness, attention, and orientation—that occurs as a result of ≥1 metabolic, infectious, drug-induced, or other medical conditions and often manifests as an acute secondary psychotic illness.12 Multiple patient and environmental characteristics have been identified as risk factors for developing delirium, including multiple and/or severe medical illnesses, preexisting dementia, depression, advanced age, polypharmacy, having an indwelling urinary catheter, impaired sight or hearing, and low albumin levels.13-15 The development of delirium is significantly and positively associated with regular alcohol use, benzodiazepine withdrawal, and angiotensin receptor blocker and dopamine receptor agonist usage.15 Approximately 40% of patients with delirium have symptoms of psychosis, and in contrast to the hallucinations experienced by patients with schizophrenia, visual hallucinations are the most common type of hallucinations seen in delirium (27%).13 In a 2021 review that included 602 patients with delirium, Tachibana et al15 found that approximately 26% experienced hallucinations, 92% of which were visual hallucinations.
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Because of the limited attention and cognitive function of patients with delirium, less is known about the content of their visual hallucinations. However, much like those with primary psychotic symptoms, patients with delirium often report seeing complex, normal-sized, concrete entities, most commonly people. Tachibana et al15 found that the hallucinated person is more often a stranger than a familiar person, but (rarely) may be an ethereal being such as a devil or ghost. The next most common visually hallucinated entities were creatures, most frequently insects and animals. Other common hallucinations were visions of events or objects, such as fires, falling ceilings, or water. Similar to those with primary psychotic illness such as schizophrenia, patients with delirium often experience emotional distress, anxiety, fear, and confusion in response to the hallucinated person, object, and/or event.15
Continue to: Primary neurologic causes
Primary neurologic causes
Visual hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases
Patients with neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson disease (PD), dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), or Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) commonly experience hallucinations as a feature of their condition. However, the true cause of these hallucinations often cannot be directly attributed to any specific pathophysiology because these patients often have multiple coexisting risk factors, such as advanced age, major depressive disorder, use of neuroactive medications, and co-occurring somatic illness. Though the prevalence of visual hallucinations varies widely between studies, with 15% to 40% reported in patients with PD, the prevalence roughly doubles in patients with PD-associated dementia (30% to 60%), and is reported by 60% to 90% of those with DLB.16-18 Hallucinations are generally thought to be less common in Alzheimer disease; such patients most commonly experience visual hallucinations, although the reported prevalence ranges widely (4% to 59%).19,20 Notably, similarly to hallucinations experienced in patients with delirium, and in contrast to those with psychosis, visual hallucinations are more common than auditory hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases.20 Hallucinations are not common in individuals with CJD but are a key defining feature of the He
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Similar to the visual hallucinations experienced by patients with psychosis or delirium, those experienced in patients with PD, DLB, or CJD are often complex, most commonly of people, followed by animals and objects. The presence of “passage hallucinations”—in which a person or animal is seen in a patient’s peripheral vision, but passes out of their visual field before the entity can be directly visualized—is common.20 Those with PD also commonly have visual hallucinations in which the form of an object appears distorted (dysmorphopsia) or the color of an object appears distorted (metachromatopsia), though these would better be classified as illusions because a real object is being perceived with distortion.22
Hallucinations are more common in the evening and at night. “Presence hallucinations” are a common type of hallucination that cannot be directly related to a specific sensory modality such as vision, though they are commonly described by patients with PD as a seen or perceived image (usually a person) that is not directly in the individual’s visual field.17 These presence hallucinations are often described as being behind the patient or in a visualized scene of what was about to happen. Before developing the dementia and myoclonus also seen in sporadic CJD, patients with the Heidenhain variant of CJD describe illusions such as metachromatopsia, dysmorphia, and micropsia that eventually develop into frank visual hallucinations, which have been poorly reported in medical literature.22,23 There are no generalizable trends in the temporal nature of visual hallucinations in patients with neurodegenerative diseases. In most cases of visual hallucinations in patients with PD and dementia, insight relating to the perception varies widely based on the patient’s cognitive status. Subsequently, patients’ reactions to the hallucinations also vary widely.
Visual hallucinations in epileptic seizures
Occipital lobe epilepsies represent 1% to 4.6% of all epilepsies; however, these represent 20% to 30% of benign childhood partial epilepsies.24,25 These are commonly associated with various types of visual hallucinations depending upon the location of the seizure onset within the occipital lobe. These are referred to as visual auras.26 Visual auras are classified into simple visual hallucinations, complex visual hallucinations, visual illusions, and ictal amaurosis (hemifield blindness or complete blindness).
Content, perceived physical properties, and reaction. Simple visual hallucinations are often described as brief, stereotypical flashing lights of various shapes and colors. These images may flicker, change shape, or take on a geometric or irregular pattern. Appearances can be repetitive and stereotyped, are often reported as moving horizontally from the periphery to the center of the visual field, and can spread to the entire visual field. Most often, these hallucinations occur for 5 to 30 seconds, and have no discernible provoking factors. Complex visual hallucinations consist of formed images of animals, people, or elaborate scenes. These are believed to reflect activation of a larger area of cortex in the temporo-parieto-occipital region, which is the visual association cortex. Very rarely, occipital lobe seizures can manifest with ictal amaurosis.24
Continue to: Simple visual auras...
Simple visual auras have a very high localizing value to the occipital lobe. The primary visual cortex (Brodmann area 17) is situated in the banks of calcarine fissure and activation of this region produces these simple hallucinations. If the hallucinations are consistently lateralized, the seizures are very likely to be coming from the contralateral occipital lobe.
Visual hallucinations in brain tumors
In general, a tumor anywhere along the optic path can produce visual hallucinations; however, the exact causal mechanism of the hallucinations is unknown. Moreover, tumors in different locations—namely the occipital lobes, temporal lobes, and frontal lobes—appear to produce visual hallucinations with substantially different characteristics.27-29 Further complicating the search for the mechanism of these hallucinations is the fact that tumors are epileptogenic. In addition, 36% to 48% of patients with brain tumors have mood symptoms (depression/mania), and 22% to 24% have psychotic symptoms (delusions/hallucinations); these symptoms are considerably location-dependent.30-32
Content and associated signs/symptoms. There are some grouped symptoms and/or hallucination characteristics associated with cerebral tumors in different lobes of the brain, though these symptoms are not specific. The visual hallucinations associated with brain tumors are typically confined to the field of vision that corresponds to the location of the tumor. Additionally, many such patients have a baseline visual field defect to some extent due to the tumor location.
In patients with occipital lobe tumors, visual hallucinations closely resemble those experienced in occipital lobe seizures, specifically bright flashes of light in colorful simple and complex shapes. Interestingly, those with occipital lobe tumors report xanthopsia, a form of chromatopsia in which objects in their field of view appear abnormally colored a yellowish shade.26,27
In patients with temporal lobe tumors, more complex visual hallucinations of people, objects, and events occurring around them are often accompanied by auditory hallucinations, olfactory hallucinations, and/or anosmia.28In those with frontal lobe tumors, similar complex visual hallucinations of people, objects, and events are seen, and olfactory hallucinations and/or anosmia are often experienced. However, these patients often have a lower likelihood of experiencing auditory hallucinations, and a higher likelihood of developing personality changes and depression than other psychotic symptoms. The visual hallucinations experienced in those with frontal lobe tumors are more likely to have violent content.29
Continue to: Visual hallucinations in migraine with aura
Visual hallucinations in migraine with aura
The estimated prevalence of migraine in the general population is 15% to 29%; 31% of those with migraine experience auras.33-35 Approximately 99% of those with migraine auras experience some type of associated visual phenomena.33,36 The pathophysiology of migraine is believed to be related to spreading cortical depression, in which a slowly propagating wave of neuroelectric depolarization travels over the cortex, followed by a depression of normal brain activity. Visual aura is thought to occur due to the resulting changes in cortical activity in the visual cortex; however, the exact electrophysiology of visual migraine aura is not entirely known.37,38 Though most patients with visual migraine aura experience simple visual hallucinations, complex hallucinations have been reported in the (very rare) cases of migraine coma and familial hemiplegic migraine.39
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The most common hallucinated entities reported by patients with migraine with aura are zigzag, flashing/sparkling, black and white curved figure(s) in the center of the visual field, commonly called a scintillating phosphene or scintillating scotoma.36 The perceived entity is often singular and gradually moves from the center to the periphery of the visual field. These visual hallucinations appear in front of all other objects in the visual field and do not interact with the environment or observer, or resemble or morph into any real-world objects, though they may change in contour, size, and color. The scintillating nature of the hallucination often resolves within minutes, usually leaving a scotoma, or area of vision loss, in the area, with resolution back to baseline vision within 1 hour. The straight, zigzag, and usually black-and-white nature of the scintillating phosphenes of migraine are in notable contrast to the colorful, often circular visual hallucinations experienced in patients with occipital lobe seizures.25
Visual hallucinations in peduncular hallucinosis
Peduncular hallucinosis is a syndrome of predominantly dreamlike visual hallucinations that occurs in the setting of lesions in the midbrain and/or thalamus.40 A recent review of the lesion etiology found that approximately 63% are caused by focal infarction and approximately 15% are caused by mass lesions; subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracerebral hemorrhage, and demyelination cause approximately 5% of cases each.40 Additionally, a review of the affected brainstem anatomy showed almost all lesions were found in the paramedian reticular formations of the midbrain and pons, with the vast majority of lesions affecting or adjacent to the oculomotor and raphe nuclei of the midbrain.39 Due to the commonly involved visual pathway, some researchers have suggested these hallucinations may be the result of a release phenomenon.39
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The visual hallucinations of peduncular hallucinosis usually start 1 to 5 days after the causal lesion forms, last several minutes to hours, and most stop after 1 to 3 weeks; however, cases of hallucinations lasting for years have been reported. These hallucinations have a diurnal pattern of usually appearing while the patient is resting in the evening and/or preparing for sleep. The characteristics of visual hallucinations vary widely from simple distortions in how real objects appear to colorful and vivid hallucinated events and people who can interact with the observer. The content of the visual hallucinations often changes in nature during the hallucination, or from one hallucination to the next. The hallucinated entities can be worldly or extraterrestrial. Once these patients fall asleep, they often have equally vivid and unusual dreams, with content similar to their visual hallucinations. Due to the anatomical involvement of the nigrostriatal pathway and oculomotor nuclei, co-occurring parkinsonism, ataxia, and oculomotor nerve palsy are common and can be a key clinical feature in establishing the diagnosis. Though patients with peduncular hallucinations commonly fear their hallucinations, they often eventually gain insight, which eases their anxiety.39
Other causes
Visual hallucinations in visual impairment
Visual hallucinations are a diagnostic requirement for Charles Bonnet syndrome, in which individuals with vision loss experience visual hallucinations in the corresponding field of vision loss.41 A lesion at any point in the visual pathway that produces visual loss can lead to Charles Bonnet syndrome; however, age-related macular degeneration is the most common cause.42 The hallucinations of Charles Bonnet syndrome are believed to be a release phenomenon, given the defective visual pathway and resultant dysfunction in visual processing. The prevalence of Charles Bonnet syndrome ranges widely by study. Larger studies report a prevalence of 11% to 27% in patients with age-related macular degeneration, depending on the severity of vision loss.43,44 Because there are many causes of Charles Bonnet syndrome, and because a recent study found that only 15% of patients with this syndrome told their eye care clinician and that 21% had not reported their hallucinatory symptoms to anyone, the true prevalence is unknown.42 Though the onset of visual hallucinations correlates with the onset of vision loss, there appears to be no association between the nature or complexity of the hallucinations and the severity or progression of the patient’s vision loss.45 Some studies have reported either the onset of or a higher frequency of visual hallucinations at a time of visual recovery (for example, treatment or exudative age-related macular degeneration), which suggests that hallucinations may be triggered by fluctuations in visual acuity.46,47 Additional risk factors for experiencing visual hallucinations in the setting of visual pathway deficit include a history of stroke, social isolation, poor cognitive function, poor lighting, and age ≥65.
Continue to: Content and associated signs/symptoms
Content and associated signs/symptoms. The visual hallucinations of patients with Charles Bonnet syndrome appear almost exclusively in the defective visual field. Images tend to be complex, colored, with moving parts, and appear in front of the patient. The hallucinations are usually of familiar or normal-appearing people or mundane objects, and as such, the patient often does not realize the hallucinated entity is not real. In patients without comorbid psychiatric disease, visual hallucinations are not accompanied by any other types of hallucinations. The most commonly hallucinated entities are people, followed by simple visual hallucinations of geometric patterns, and then by faces (natural or cartoon-like) and inanimate objects. Hallucinations most commonly occur daily or weekly, and upon waking. These hallucinations most often last several minutes, though they can last just a few seconds or for hours. Hallucinations are usually emotionally neutral, but most patients report feeling confused by their appearance and having a fear of underlying psychiatric disease. They often gain insight to the unreal nature of the hallucinations after counseling.48
Visual hallucinations at the sleep/wake interface
Hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations are fleeting perceptual experiences that occur while an individual is falling asleep or waking, respectively.49 Because by definition visual hallucinations occur while the individual is fully awake, categorizing hallucination-like experiences such as hypnagogia and hypnopompia is difficult, especially since these are similar to other states in which alterations in perception are expected (namely a dream state). They are commonly associated with sleep disorders such as narcolepsy, cataplexy, and sleep paralysis.50,51 In a study of 13,057 individuals in the general population, Ohayon et al4 found the overall prevalence of hypnagogic or hypnopompic hallucinations was 24.8% (5.3% visual) and 6.6% (1.5% visual), respectively. Approximately one-third of participants reported having experienced ≥1 hallucinatory experience in their lifetime, regardless of being asleep or awake.4 There was a higher prevalence of hypnagogic/hypnopompic experiences among those who also reported daytime hallucinations or other psychotic features.
Content and associated signs/symptoms. Unfortunately, because of the frequent co-occurrence of sleep disorders and psychiatric conditions, as well as the general paucity of research, it is difficult to characterize the visual phenomenology of hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations. Some evidence suggests the nature of the perception of the objects hallucinated is substantially impacted by the presence of preexisting psychotic symptoms. Insight into the reality of these hallucinations also depends upon the presence of comorbid psychiatric disease. Hypnagogic/hypnopompic hallucinations are often described as complex, colorful, vivid, and dream-like, as if the patient was in a “half sleep” state.52 They are usually described as highly detailed events involving people and/or animals, though they may be grotesque in nature. Perceived entities are often described as undergoing a transformation or being mobile in their environment. Rarely do these perceptions invoke emotion or change the patient’s beliefs. Hypnagogia/hypnopompia also often have an auditory or haptic component to them. Visual phenomena can either appear to take place within an alternative background environment or appear superimposed on the patient’s actual physical environment.
How to determine the cause
In many of the studies cited in this review, the participants had a considerable amount of psychiatric comorbidity, which makes it difficult to discriminate between pure neurologic and pure psychiatric causes of hallucinations. Though the visual content of the hallucinations (people, objects, shapes, lights) can help clinicians broadly differentiate causes, many other characteristics of both the hallucinations and the patient can help determine the cause (Table3,4,12-39,41-52). The most useful characteristics for discerning the etiology of an individual’s visual hallucinations are the patient’s age, the visual field in which the hallucination occurs, and the complexity/simplicity of the hallucination.
Patient age. Hallucinations associated with primary psychosis decrease with age. The average age of onset of migraine with aura is 21. Occipital lobe seizures occur in early childhood to age 40, but most commonly occur in the second decade.32,36 No trend in age can be reliably determined in individuals who experience hypnagogia/hypnopompia. In contrast, other potential causes of visual hallucinations, such as delirium, neurodegenerative disease, eye disease, and peduncular hallucinosis, are more commonly associated with advanced age.
Continue to: The visual field(s)
The visual field(s) in which the hallucination occurs can help differentiate possible causes in patients with seizure, brain tumor, migraine, or visual impairment. In patients with psychosis, delirium, peduncular hallucinosis, or hypnagogia/hypnopompia, hallucinations can occur in any visual field. Those with neurodegenerative disease, particularly PD, commonly describe seeing so-called passage hallucinations and presence hallucinations, which occur outside of the patient’s direct vision. Visual hallucinations associated with seizure are often unilateral (homonymous left or right hemifield), and contralateral to the affected neurologic structures in the visual neural pathway; they start in the left or right peripheral vision and gradually move to the central visual field. In hallucinations experienced by patients with brain tumors, the hallucinated entities typically appear on the visual field contralateral to the underlying tumor. Visual hallucinations seen in migraine often include a figure that moves from central vision to more lateral in the visual field. The visual hallucinations seen in eye disease (namely Charles Bonnet syndrome) are almost exclusively perceived in the visual fields affected by decreased visual acuity, though non-side-locked visual hallucinations are common in patients with age-related macular degeneration.
Content and complexity. The visual hallucinations perceived in those with psychosis, delirium, neurodegenerative disease, and sleep disorders are generally complex. These hallucinations tend to be of people, animals, scenes, or faces and include color and associated sound, with moving parts and interactivity with either the patient or the environment. These are in contrast to the simple visual hallucinations of visual cortex seizures, brain tumors, and migraine aura, which are often reported as brightly colored or black/white lights, flashes, and shapes, with or without associated auditory, olfactory, or somatic sensation. Furthermore, hallucinations due to seizure and brain tumor (also likely due to seizure) are often of brightly colored shapes and lights with curved edges, while patients with migraine more commonly report singular sparkling black/white objects with straight lines.
Bottom Line
Though there are no features known to be specific to only 1 cause of visual hallucinations, some characteristics of both the patient and the hallucinations can help direct the diagnostic differential. The most useful characteristics are the patient’s age, the visual field in which the hallucination occurs, and the complexity/ simplicity of the hallucination.
Related Resources
- Wang J, Patel D, Francois D. Elaborate hallucinations, but is it a psychotic disorder? Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(2):46-50. doi:10.12788/cp.0091
- O’Brien J, Taylor JP, Ballard C, et al. Visual hallucinations in neurological and ophthalmological disease: pathophysiology and management. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020; 91(5):512-519. doi:10.1136/jnnp-2019-322702
1. Asaad G, Shapiro B. Hallucinations: theoretical and clinical overview. Am J Psychiatry. 1987;143(9):1088-1097.
2. Taam MA, Boissieu P, Taam RA, et al. Drug-induced hallucination: a case/non-case study in the French Pharmacovigilance Database. Article in French. Eur J Psychiatry. 2015;29(1):21-31.
3. Waters F, Collerton D, Ffytche DH, et al. Visual hallucinations in the psychosis spectrum and comparative information from neurodegenerative disorders and disease. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(Suppl 4):S233-S245.
4. Ohayon MM. Prevalence of hallucinations and their pathological associations in the general population. Psychiatry Res. 2000;97(2-3):153-164.
5. Rees WD. The hallucinations of widowhood. Br Med J. 1971;4(5778):37-41.
6. Delespaul P, deVries M, van Os J. Determinants of occurrence and recovery from hallucinations in daily life. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002;37(3):97-104.
7. Gauntlett-Gilbert J, Kuipers E. Phenomenology of visual hallucinations in psychiatric conditions. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2003;191(3):203-205.
8. Goodwin FK, Jamison KR. Manic Depressive Illness. Oxford University Press, Inc.; 1999.
9. Mueser KT, Bellack AS, Brady EU. Hallucinations in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1990;82(1):26-29.
10. McCabe MS, Fowler RC, Cadoret RJ, et al. Symptom differences in schizophrenia with good and bad prognosis. Am J Psychiatry. 1972;128(10):1239-1243.
11. Baethge C, Baldessarini RJ, Freudenthal K, et al. Hallucinations in bipolar disorder: characteristics and comparison to unipolar depression and schizophrenia. Bipolar Disord. 2005;7(2):136-145.
12. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
13. Ahmed S, Leurent B, Sampson EL. Risk factors for incident delirium among older people in acute hospital medical units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2014;43(3):326-333.
14. Webster R, Holroyd S. Prevalence of psychotic symptoms in delirium. Psychosomatics. 2000;41(6):519-522.
15. Tachibana M, Inada T, Ichida M, et al. Factors affecting hallucinations in patients with delirium. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):13005. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-92578-1
16. Fenelon G, Mahieux F, Huon R, et al. Hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease: prevalence, phenomenology and risk factors. Brain. 2000;123(Pt 4):733-745.
17. Papapetropoulos S, Argyriou AA, Ellul J. Factors associated with drug-induced visual hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol. 2005;252(10):1223-1228.
18. Williams DR, Warren JD, Lees AJ. Using the presence of visual hallucinations to differentiate Parkinson’s disease from atypical parkinsonism. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(6):652-655.
19. Linszen MMJ, Lemstra AW, Dauwan M, et al. Understanding hallucinations in probable Alzheimer’s disease: very low prevalence rates in a tertiary memory clinic. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2018;10:358-362.
20. Burghaus L, Eggers C, Timmermann L, et al. Hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2012;18(2):149-159.
21. Brar HK, Vaddigiri V, Scicutella A. Of illusions, hallucinations, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Heidenhain’s variant). J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005;17(1):124-126.
22. Sasaki C, Yokoi K, Takahashi H, et al. Visual illusions in Parkinson’s disease: an interview survey of symptomatology. Psychogeriatrics. 2022;22(1):28-48.
23. Kropp S, Schulz-Schaeffer WJ, Finkenstaedt M, et al. The Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Arch Neurol. 1999;56(1):55-61.
24. Taylor I, Scheffer IE, Berkovic SF. Occipital epilepsies: identification of specific and newly recognized syndromes. Brain. 2003;126(Pt 4):753-769.
25. Caraballo R, Cersosimo R, Medina C, et al. Panayiotopoulos-type benign childhood occipital epilepsy: a prospective study. Neurology. 2000;5(8):1096-1100.
26. Chowdhury FA, Silva R, Whatley B, et al. Localisation in focal epilepsy: a practical guide. Practical Neurol. 2021;21(6):481-491.
27. Horrax G, Putnam TJ. Distortions of the visual fields in cases of brain tumour: the field defects and hallucinations produced by tumours of the occipital lobe. Brain. 1932;55(4):499-523.
28. Cushing H. Distortions of the visual fields in cases of brain tumor (6th paper): the field defects produced by temporal lobe lesions. Brain. 1922;44(4):341-396.
29. Fornazzari L, Farcnik K, Smith I, et al. Violent visual hallucinations and aggression in frontal lobe dysfunction: clinical manifestations of deep orbitofrontal foci. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1992;4(1):42-44.
30. Madhusoodanan S, Opler MGA, Moise D, et al. Brain tumor location and psychiatric symptoms: is there an association? A meta-analysis of published cases studies. Expert Rev Neurother. 2010;10(10):1529-1536.
31. Madhusoodanan S, Sinha A, Moise D. Brain tumors and psychiatric manifestations: a review and analysis. Poster presented at: The American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry Annual Meeting; March 10-13; 2006; San Juan, Puerto Rico.
32. Madhusoodanan S, Danan D, Moise D. Psychiatric manifestations of brain tumors/gliomas. Rivistica Medica. 2007;13(4):209-215.
33. Kirchmann M. Migraine with aura: new understanding from clinical epidemiological studies. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:286-293.
34. Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine: current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(4):257-270.
35. Waters WE, O’Connor PJ. Prevalence of migraine. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1975;38(6):613-616.
36. Russell MB, Olesen J. A nosographic analysis of the migraine aura in a general population. Brain. 1996;119(Pt 2):355-361.
37. Cozzolino O, Marchese M, Trovato F, et al. Understanding spreading depression from headache to sudden unexpected death. Front Neurol. 2018;9:19.
38. Hadjikhani N, Sanchez del Rio M, Wu O, et al. Mechanisms of migraine aura revealed by functional MRI in human visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(8):4687-4692.
39. Manford M, Andermann F. Complex visual hallucinations. Clinical and neurobiological insights. Brain. 1998;121(Pt 10):1819-1840.
40. Galetta KM, Prasad S. Historical trends in the diagnosis of peduncular hallucinosis. J Neuroophthalmol. 2018;38(4):438-441.
41. Schadlu AP, Schadlu R, Shepherd JB III. Charles Bonnet syndrome: a review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(3):219-222.
42. Vukicevic M, Fitzmaurice K. Butterflies and black lace patterns: the prevalence and characteristics of Charles Bonnet hallucinations in an Australian population. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;36(7):659-665.
43. Teunisse RJ, Cruysberg JR, Verbeek A, et al. The Charles Bonnet syndrome: a large prospective study in the Netherlands. A study of the prevalence of the Charles Bonnet syndrome and associated factors in 500 patients attending the University Department of Ophthalmology at Nijmegen. Br J Psychiatry. 1995;166(2):254-257.
44. Holroyd S, Rabins PV, Finkelstein D, et al. Visual hallucination in patients with macular degeneration. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149(12):1701-1706.
45. Khan JC, Shahid H, Thurlby DA, et al. Charles Bonnet syndrome in age-related macular degeneration: the nature and frequency of images in subjects with end-stage disease. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15(3):202-208.
46. Cohen SY, Bulik A, Tadayoni R, et al. Visual hallucinations and Charles Bonnet syndrome after photodynamic therapy for age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(8):977-979.
47. Meyer CH, Mennel S, Horle S, et al. Visual hallucinations after intravitreal injection of bevacizumab in vascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):169-170.
48. Jan T, Del Castillo J. Visual hallucinations: Charles Bonnet syndrome. West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(6):544-547. doi:10.5811/westjem.2012.7.12891
49. Foulkes D, Vogel G. Mental activity at sleep onset. J Abnorm Psychol. 1965;70:231-243.
50. Mitler MM, Hajdukovic R, Erman M, et al. Narcolepsy. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1990;7(1):93-118.
51. Nishino S. Clinical and neurobiological aspects of narcolepsy. Sleep Med. 2007;8(4):373-399.
52. Schultz SK, Miller DD, Oliver SE, et al. The life course of schizophrenia: age and symptom dimensions. Schizophr Res. 1997;23(1):15-23.
1. Asaad G, Shapiro B. Hallucinations: theoretical and clinical overview. Am J Psychiatry. 1987;143(9):1088-1097.
2. Taam MA, Boissieu P, Taam RA, et al. Drug-induced hallucination: a case/non-case study in the French Pharmacovigilance Database. Article in French. Eur J Psychiatry. 2015;29(1):21-31.
3. Waters F, Collerton D, Ffytche DH, et al. Visual hallucinations in the psychosis spectrum and comparative information from neurodegenerative disorders and disease. Schizophr Bull. 2014;40(Suppl 4):S233-S245.
4. Ohayon MM. Prevalence of hallucinations and their pathological associations in the general population. Psychiatry Res. 2000;97(2-3):153-164.
5. Rees WD. The hallucinations of widowhood. Br Med J. 1971;4(5778):37-41.
6. Delespaul P, deVries M, van Os J. Determinants of occurrence and recovery from hallucinations in daily life. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2002;37(3):97-104.
7. Gauntlett-Gilbert J, Kuipers E. Phenomenology of visual hallucinations in psychiatric conditions. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2003;191(3):203-205.
8. Goodwin FK, Jamison KR. Manic Depressive Illness. Oxford University Press, Inc.; 1999.
9. Mueser KT, Bellack AS, Brady EU. Hallucinations in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1990;82(1):26-29.
10. McCabe MS, Fowler RC, Cadoret RJ, et al. Symptom differences in schizophrenia with good and bad prognosis. Am J Psychiatry. 1972;128(10):1239-1243.
11. Baethge C, Baldessarini RJ, Freudenthal K, et al. Hallucinations in bipolar disorder: characteristics and comparison to unipolar depression and schizophrenia. Bipolar Disord. 2005;7(2):136-145.
12. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed. American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.
13. Ahmed S, Leurent B, Sampson EL. Risk factors for incident delirium among older people in acute hospital medical units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing. 2014;43(3):326-333.
14. Webster R, Holroyd S. Prevalence of psychotic symptoms in delirium. Psychosomatics. 2000;41(6):519-522.
15. Tachibana M, Inada T, Ichida M, et al. Factors affecting hallucinations in patients with delirium. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):13005. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-92578-1
16. Fenelon G, Mahieux F, Huon R, et al. Hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease: prevalence, phenomenology and risk factors. Brain. 2000;123(Pt 4):733-745.
17. Papapetropoulos S, Argyriou AA, Ellul J. Factors associated with drug-induced visual hallucinations in Parkinson’s disease. J Neurol. 2005;252(10):1223-1228.
18. Williams DR, Warren JD, Lees AJ. Using the presence of visual hallucinations to differentiate Parkinson’s disease from atypical parkinsonism. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2008;79(6):652-655.
19. Linszen MMJ, Lemstra AW, Dauwan M, et al. Understanding hallucinations in probable Alzheimer’s disease: very low prevalence rates in a tertiary memory clinic. Alzheimers Dement (Amst). 2018;10:358-362.
20. Burghaus L, Eggers C, Timmermann L, et al. Hallucinations in neurodegenerative diseases. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2012;18(2):149-159.
21. Brar HK, Vaddigiri V, Scicutella A. Of illusions, hallucinations, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (Heidenhain’s variant). J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2005;17(1):124-126.
22. Sasaki C, Yokoi K, Takahashi H, et al. Visual illusions in Parkinson’s disease: an interview survey of symptomatology. Psychogeriatrics. 2022;22(1):28-48.
23. Kropp S, Schulz-Schaeffer WJ, Finkenstaedt M, et al. The Heidenhain variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Arch Neurol. 1999;56(1):55-61.
24. Taylor I, Scheffer IE, Berkovic SF. Occipital epilepsies: identification of specific and newly recognized syndromes. Brain. 2003;126(Pt 4):753-769.
25. Caraballo R, Cersosimo R, Medina C, et al. Panayiotopoulos-type benign childhood occipital epilepsy: a prospective study. Neurology. 2000;5(8):1096-1100.
26. Chowdhury FA, Silva R, Whatley B, et al. Localisation in focal epilepsy: a practical guide. Practical Neurol. 2021;21(6):481-491.
27. Horrax G, Putnam TJ. Distortions of the visual fields in cases of brain tumour: the field defects and hallucinations produced by tumours of the occipital lobe. Brain. 1932;55(4):499-523.
28. Cushing H. Distortions of the visual fields in cases of brain tumor (6th paper): the field defects produced by temporal lobe lesions. Brain. 1922;44(4):341-396.
29. Fornazzari L, Farcnik K, Smith I, et al. Violent visual hallucinations and aggression in frontal lobe dysfunction: clinical manifestations of deep orbitofrontal foci. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1992;4(1):42-44.
30. Madhusoodanan S, Opler MGA, Moise D, et al. Brain tumor location and psychiatric symptoms: is there an association? A meta-analysis of published cases studies. Expert Rev Neurother. 2010;10(10):1529-1536.
31. Madhusoodanan S, Sinha A, Moise D. Brain tumors and psychiatric manifestations: a review and analysis. Poster presented at: The American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry Annual Meeting; March 10-13; 2006; San Juan, Puerto Rico.
32. Madhusoodanan S, Danan D, Moise D. Psychiatric manifestations of brain tumors/gliomas. Rivistica Medica. 2007;13(4):209-215.
33. Kirchmann M. Migraine with aura: new understanding from clinical epidemiological studies. Curr Opin Neurol. 2006;19:286-293.
34. Goadsby PJ, Lipton RB, Ferrari MD. Migraine: current understanding and treatment. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(4):257-270.
35. Waters WE, O’Connor PJ. Prevalence of migraine. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1975;38(6):613-616.
36. Russell MB, Olesen J. A nosographic analysis of the migraine aura in a general population. Brain. 1996;119(Pt 2):355-361.
37. Cozzolino O, Marchese M, Trovato F, et al. Understanding spreading depression from headache to sudden unexpected death. Front Neurol. 2018;9:19.
38. Hadjikhani N, Sanchez del Rio M, Wu O, et al. Mechanisms of migraine aura revealed by functional MRI in human visual cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(8):4687-4692.
39. Manford M, Andermann F. Complex visual hallucinations. Clinical and neurobiological insights. Brain. 1998;121(Pt 10):1819-1840.
40. Galetta KM, Prasad S. Historical trends in the diagnosis of peduncular hallucinosis. J Neuroophthalmol. 2018;38(4):438-441.
41. Schadlu AP, Schadlu R, Shepherd JB III. Charles Bonnet syndrome: a review. Curr Opin Ophthalmol. 2009;20(3):219-222.
42. Vukicevic M, Fitzmaurice K. Butterflies and black lace patterns: the prevalence and characteristics of Charles Bonnet hallucinations in an Australian population. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008;36(7):659-665.
43. Teunisse RJ, Cruysberg JR, Verbeek A, et al. The Charles Bonnet syndrome: a large prospective study in the Netherlands. A study of the prevalence of the Charles Bonnet syndrome and associated factors in 500 patients attending the University Department of Ophthalmology at Nijmegen. Br J Psychiatry. 1995;166(2):254-257.
44. Holroyd S, Rabins PV, Finkelstein D, et al. Visual hallucination in patients with macular degeneration. Am J Psychiatry. 1992;149(12):1701-1706.
45. Khan JC, Shahid H, Thurlby DA, et al. Charles Bonnet syndrome in age-related macular degeneration: the nature and frequency of images in subjects with end-stage disease. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2008;15(3):202-208.
46. Cohen SY, Bulik A, Tadayoni R, et al. Visual hallucinations and Charles Bonnet syndrome after photodynamic therapy for age related macular degeneration. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003;87(8):977-979.
47. Meyer CH, Mennel S, Horle S, et al. Visual hallucinations after intravitreal injection of bevacizumab in vascular age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2007;143(1):169-170.
48. Jan T, Del Castillo J. Visual hallucinations: Charles Bonnet syndrome. West J Emerg Med. 2012;13(6):544-547. doi:10.5811/westjem.2012.7.12891
49. Foulkes D, Vogel G. Mental activity at sleep onset. J Abnorm Psychol. 1965;70:231-243.
50. Mitler MM, Hajdukovic R, Erman M, et al. Narcolepsy. J Clin Neurophysiol. 1990;7(1):93-118.
51. Nishino S. Clinical and neurobiological aspects of narcolepsy. Sleep Med. 2007;8(4):373-399.
52. Schultz SK, Miller DD, Oliver SE, et al. The life course of schizophrenia: age and symptom dimensions. Schizophr Res. 1997;23(1):15-23.
Artificial sweetener in ‘keto foods’ tied to cardiovascular risk
Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.
The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.
First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke.
Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.
Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.
“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.
“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.
“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.
The topic remains controversial.
Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.”
Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day.
“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”
“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’
Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.
Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.
Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
Multipart study
In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.
Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.
In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).
At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.
Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
Others weigh in
“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.
Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”
“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.
“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.
Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”
The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.
The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.
The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.
First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke.
Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.
Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.
“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.
“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.
“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.
The topic remains controversial.
Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.”
Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day.
“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”
“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’
Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.
Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.
Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
Multipart study
In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.
Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.
In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).
At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.
Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
Others weigh in
“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.
Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”
“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.
“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.
Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”
The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.
The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Erythritol is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners with rapidly increasing prevalence in processed and “keto-related” foods. Artificial sweeteners are “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, so there is no requirement for long-term safety studies, and little is known about the long-term health effects.
The current research, published online in Nature Medicine by Marco Witkowski, MD, of the Lerner Research Institute at Cleveland Clinic and colleagues, had multiple parts.
First, in a group of patients undergoing cardiac risk assessment, the researchers found that high levels of polyols, especially erythritol, were associated with increased 3-year risk of MACE, defined as cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke.
Next, the association of erythritol with this outcome was reproduced in two large U.S. and European groups of stable patients undergoing elective cardiac evaluation.
Next, adding erythritol to whole blood or platelets led to clot activation. And lastly, in eight healthy volunteers, ingesting 30 g of an erythritol-sweetened drink – comparable to a single can of commercially available beverage or a pint of keto ice cream – induced marked and sustained (> 2 day) increases in levels of plasma erythritol.
“Our study shows that when participants consumed an artificially sweetened beverage with an amount of erythritol found in many processed foods, markedly elevated levels in the blood are observed for days – levels well above those observed to enhance clotting risks,” said senior author Stanley L. Hazen, MD, PhD.
“It is important that further safety studies are conducted to examine the long-term effects of artificial sweeteners in general, and erythritol specifically, on risks for heart attack and stroke, particularly in people at higher risk for cardiovascular disease,” Dr. Hazen, co–section head of preventive cardiology at Cleveland Clinic, said in a press release from his institution.
“Sweeteners like erythritol have rapidly increased in popularity in recent years, but there needs to be more in-depth research into their long-term effects. Cardiovascular disease builds over time, and heart disease is the leading cause of death globally. We need to make sure the foods we eat aren’t hidden contributors,” Dr. Hazen urged.
The topic remains controversial.
Duane Mellor, PhD, a registered dietitian and senior teaching fellow at Aston University, Birmingham, England, told the U.K. Science Media Centre: “This paper effectively shows multiple pieces of a jigsaw exploring the effects of erythritol – although it claims to show an associated risk with the use of erythritol as an artificial sweetener and cardiovascular disease, I believe it fails to do so, as ultimately, erythritol can be made inside our bodies and the intake in most people’s diet is much lower than the amount given in this study.”
Dr. Hazen countered that data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States show that, in some individuals, daily intake of erythritol is estimated to reach 30 g/day.
“Many try and reduce sugar intake by taking many teaspoons of erythritol in their tea, coffee, etc., instead of sugar,” Dr. Hazen added. “Or they eat keto processed foods that have significant quantities of erythritol within it.”
“These studies are a warning for how our processed food (keto and zero sugar, especially) may inadvertently be causing risk/harm. … in the very subset of subjects who are most vulnerable,” according to Dr. Hazen.
Erythritol marketed as ‘zero calorie’, ‘non-nutritive’, or ‘natural’
Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity are often advised to replace sugar with artificial sweeteners for better glucose control and weight loss, but growing epidemiologic evidence links artificial sweetener consumption with weight gain, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease, the researchers write.
Erythritol is naturally present in low amounts in fruits and vegetables; the artificial sweetener erythritol that is produced from corn is only 70% as sweet as sugar.
Upon ingestion it is poorly metabolized, and most is excreted in the urine, so it is characterized as a “zero-calorie,” “non-nutritive,” or “natural sweetener.” It is predicted to double in marketshare in the sweetener sector in the next 5 years.
Multipart study
In the first part of their study, in a discovery cohort in 1,157 patients undergoing cardiovascular assessment with 3-year outcomes, the researchers identified polyols that were associated with MACE, and erythritol was among the top MACE-associated molecules.
Next, in a U.S. validation cohort of 2,149 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 1.8-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .007), after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors.
In a European validation cohort of 833 patients, over a 3-year follow-up, patients with plasma levels of erythritol in the highest quartile had a 2.21-fold higher risk of MACE than patients in the lowest quartile (P = .010, after adjustment).
At physiologic levels, erythritol enhanced platelet reactivity in vitro and thrombosis formation in vivo.
Finally, in a prospective pilot intervention study, erythritol ingestion in healthy volunteers induced marked and sustained increases in plasma erythritol levels well above thresholds associated with heightened platelet reactivity and thrombosis potential in in vitro and in vivo studies.
Others weigh in
“While I think the finding certainly warrants further investigation, don’t throw out your sweeteners just yet,” commented Oliver Jones, PhD, professor of chemistry at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
“This study only looks at erythritol, and artificial sweeteners are generally considered safe. Any possible (and, as yet unproven) risks of excess erythritol would also need to be balanced against the very real health risks of excess glucose consumption,” he said.
Dr. Hazen responded: “True enough. Erythritol is but one of many artificial sweeteners. That is why it is important to read labels. This study can make patients be informed about how to potentially avoid something that might cause them inadvertent harm.”
“The key findings of this study are that high blood levels of erythritol are strongly associated with cardiovascular outcomes in high-risk patients, which has been replicated in separate validation studies,” said Tom Sanders, DSc, PhD, professor emeritus of nutrition and dietetics, King’s College London.
“Diabetes UK currently advises diabetes patients not to use polyols,” he added.
Dr. Hazen noted that “About three-quarters of the participants had coronary disease, high blood pressure, and about a fifth had diabetes.”
The researchers acknowledge, however, that the observational studies cannot show cause and effect.
The study was supported by the Office of Dietary Supplements at the National Institutes of Health, the Leducq Foundation, and the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Dr. Mellor, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Sanders have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE MEDICINE
Ketamine plus psychotherapy ‘highly effective’ for PTSD
In a systematic review and meta-analysis of four studies investigating combined use of psychotherapy and ketamine for PTSD, results showed that all the studies showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptom scores.
Overall, the treatment was “highly effective, as seen by the significant improvements in symptoms on multiple measures,” Aaron E. Philipp-Muller, BScH, Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.
Furthermore, the study “demonstrates the potential feasibility of this treatment model and corroborates previous work,” the investigators write.
However, a limitation they note was that only 34 participants were included in the analysis.
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Emerging treatment
Ketamine is an “emerging treatment for a number of psychopathologies, such as major depressive disorder and PTSD, with a higher response than other pharmacologic agents,” the researchers write.
It is hypothesized that ketamine rapidly facilitates long-term potentiation, “thereby allowing a patient to disengage from an established pattern of thought more readily,” they write.
However, ketamine has several drawbacks, including the fact that it brings only 1 week of relief for PTSD. Also, because it must be administered intravenously, it is “impractical for long-term weekly administration,” they note.
Pharmacologically enhanced psychotherapy is a potential way to prolong ketamine’s effects. Several prior studies have investigated this model using other psychedelic medications, with encouraging results.
The current investigators decided to review all literature to date on the subject of ketamine plus psychotherapy for the treatment of PTSD.
To be included, the study had to include patients diagnosed with PTSD, an intervention involving ketamine alongside any form of psychotherapy, and assessment of all patients before and after treatment using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) or the PTSD Checklist (PCL).
Four studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, two were of “moderate” quality and two were of “low” quality, based on the GRADE assessment. The studies encompassed a total of 34 patients with “diverse traumatic experiences” and included several types of ketamine administration protocols, including one used previously for treating depression and another used previously for chronic pain.
The psychotherapy modalities also differed between the studies. In two studies, patients received 12 sessions of trauma interventions using mindfulness-based extinction and reconsolidation therapy; in a third study, patients received 10 weekly sessions of prolonged exposure therapy; and in the fourth study, patients received five daily sessions of exposure therapy.
Across the studies, the psychotherapies were paired differently with ketamine administration, such as the number of ketamine administrations in conjunction with therapy.
Despite the differences in protocols, all the studies of ketamine plus psychotherapy showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, with a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of –7.26 (95% CI, –12.28 to –2.25; P = .005) for the CAPS and a pooled SMD of –5.17 (95% CI, –7.99 to –2.35; P < .001) for the PCL.
The researchers acknowledge that the sample size was very small “due to the novelty of this research area.” This prompted the inclusion of nonrandomized studies that “lowered the quality of the evidence,” they note.
Nevertheless, “these preliminary findings indicate the potential of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD,” the investigators write.
A promising avenue?
In a comment, Dan Iosifescu, MD, professor of psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, called the combination of ketamine and psychotherapy in PTSD “a very promising treatment avenue.”
Dr. Iosifescu, who was not involved with the research, noted that “several PTSD-focused psychotherapies are ultimately very effective but very hard to tolerate for participants.” For example, prolonged exposure therapy has dropout rates as high as 50%.
In addition, ketamine has rapid but not sustained effects in PTSD, he said.
“So in theory, a course of ketamine could help PTSD patients improve rapidly and tolerate the psychotherapy, which could provide sustained benefits,” he added.
However, Dr. Iosifescu cautioned that the data supporting this “is very sparse for now.”
He also noted that the meta-analysis included only “four tiny studies” and had only 34 total participants. In addition, several of the studies had no comparison group and the study designs were all different – “both with respect to the administration of ketamine and to the paired PTSD psychotherapy.”
For this reason, “any conclusions are only a very preliminary suggestion that this may be a fruitful avenue,” he said.
Dr. Iosifescu added that additional studies on this topic are ongoing. The largest one at the Veterans Administration will hopefully include 100 participants and “will provide more reliable evidence for this important topic,” he said.
The study was indirectly supported by the Internal Faculty Grant from the department of psychiatry, Queen’s University. Dr. Iosifescu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a systematic review and meta-analysis of four studies investigating combined use of psychotherapy and ketamine for PTSD, results showed that all the studies showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptom scores.
Overall, the treatment was “highly effective, as seen by the significant improvements in symptoms on multiple measures,” Aaron E. Philipp-Muller, BScH, Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.
Furthermore, the study “demonstrates the potential feasibility of this treatment model and corroborates previous work,” the investigators write.
However, a limitation they note was that only 34 participants were included in the analysis.
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Emerging treatment
Ketamine is an “emerging treatment for a number of psychopathologies, such as major depressive disorder and PTSD, with a higher response than other pharmacologic agents,” the researchers write.
It is hypothesized that ketamine rapidly facilitates long-term potentiation, “thereby allowing a patient to disengage from an established pattern of thought more readily,” they write.
However, ketamine has several drawbacks, including the fact that it brings only 1 week of relief for PTSD. Also, because it must be administered intravenously, it is “impractical for long-term weekly administration,” they note.
Pharmacologically enhanced psychotherapy is a potential way to prolong ketamine’s effects. Several prior studies have investigated this model using other psychedelic medications, with encouraging results.
The current investigators decided to review all literature to date on the subject of ketamine plus psychotherapy for the treatment of PTSD.
To be included, the study had to include patients diagnosed with PTSD, an intervention involving ketamine alongside any form of psychotherapy, and assessment of all patients before and after treatment using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) or the PTSD Checklist (PCL).
Four studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, two were of “moderate” quality and two were of “low” quality, based on the GRADE assessment. The studies encompassed a total of 34 patients with “diverse traumatic experiences” and included several types of ketamine administration protocols, including one used previously for treating depression and another used previously for chronic pain.
The psychotherapy modalities also differed between the studies. In two studies, patients received 12 sessions of trauma interventions using mindfulness-based extinction and reconsolidation therapy; in a third study, patients received 10 weekly sessions of prolonged exposure therapy; and in the fourth study, patients received five daily sessions of exposure therapy.
Across the studies, the psychotherapies were paired differently with ketamine administration, such as the number of ketamine administrations in conjunction with therapy.
Despite the differences in protocols, all the studies of ketamine plus psychotherapy showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, with a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of –7.26 (95% CI, –12.28 to –2.25; P = .005) for the CAPS and a pooled SMD of –5.17 (95% CI, –7.99 to –2.35; P < .001) for the PCL.
The researchers acknowledge that the sample size was very small “due to the novelty of this research area.” This prompted the inclusion of nonrandomized studies that “lowered the quality of the evidence,” they note.
Nevertheless, “these preliminary findings indicate the potential of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD,” the investigators write.
A promising avenue?
In a comment, Dan Iosifescu, MD, professor of psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, called the combination of ketamine and psychotherapy in PTSD “a very promising treatment avenue.”
Dr. Iosifescu, who was not involved with the research, noted that “several PTSD-focused psychotherapies are ultimately very effective but very hard to tolerate for participants.” For example, prolonged exposure therapy has dropout rates as high as 50%.
In addition, ketamine has rapid but not sustained effects in PTSD, he said.
“So in theory, a course of ketamine could help PTSD patients improve rapidly and tolerate the psychotherapy, which could provide sustained benefits,” he added.
However, Dr. Iosifescu cautioned that the data supporting this “is very sparse for now.”
He also noted that the meta-analysis included only “four tiny studies” and had only 34 total participants. In addition, several of the studies had no comparison group and the study designs were all different – “both with respect to the administration of ketamine and to the paired PTSD psychotherapy.”
For this reason, “any conclusions are only a very preliminary suggestion that this may be a fruitful avenue,” he said.
Dr. Iosifescu added that additional studies on this topic are ongoing. The largest one at the Veterans Administration will hopefully include 100 participants and “will provide more reliable evidence for this important topic,” he said.
The study was indirectly supported by the Internal Faculty Grant from the department of psychiatry, Queen’s University. Dr. Iosifescu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
In a systematic review and meta-analysis of four studies investigating combined use of psychotherapy and ketamine for PTSD, results showed that all the studies showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptom scores.
Overall, the treatment was “highly effective, as seen by the significant improvements in symptoms on multiple measures,” Aaron E. Philipp-Muller, BScH, Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.
Furthermore, the study “demonstrates the potential feasibility of this treatment model and corroborates previous work,” the investigators write.
However, a limitation they note was that only 34 participants were included in the analysis.
The findings were published online in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry.
Emerging treatment
Ketamine is an “emerging treatment for a number of psychopathologies, such as major depressive disorder and PTSD, with a higher response than other pharmacologic agents,” the researchers write.
It is hypothesized that ketamine rapidly facilitates long-term potentiation, “thereby allowing a patient to disengage from an established pattern of thought more readily,” they write.
However, ketamine has several drawbacks, including the fact that it brings only 1 week of relief for PTSD. Also, because it must be administered intravenously, it is “impractical for long-term weekly administration,” they note.
Pharmacologically enhanced psychotherapy is a potential way to prolong ketamine’s effects. Several prior studies have investigated this model using other psychedelic medications, with encouraging results.
The current investigators decided to review all literature to date on the subject of ketamine plus psychotherapy for the treatment of PTSD.
To be included, the study had to include patients diagnosed with PTSD, an intervention involving ketamine alongside any form of psychotherapy, and assessment of all patients before and after treatment using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) or the PTSD Checklist (PCL).
Four studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, two were of “moderate” quality and two were of “low” quality, based on the GRADE assessment. The studies encompassed a total of 34 patients with “diverse traumatic experiences” and included several types of ketamine administration protocols, including one used previously for treating depression and another used previously for chronic pain.
The psychotherapy modalities also differed between the studies. In two studies, patients received 12 sessions of trauma interventions using mindfulness-based extinction and reconsolidation therapy; in a third study, patients received 10 weekly sessions of prolonged exposure therapy; and in the fourth study, patients received five daily sessions of exposure therapy.
Across the studies, the psychotherapies were paired differently with ketamine administration, such as the number of ketamine administrations in conjunction with therapy.
Despite the differences in protocols, all the studies of ketamine plus psychotherapy showed a significant reduction in PTSD symptoms, with a pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) of –7.26 (95% CI, –12.28 to –2.25; P = .005) for the CAPS and a pooled SMD of –5.17 (95% CI, –7.99 to –2.35; P < .001) for the PCL.
The researchers acknowledge that the sample size was very small “due to the novelty of this research area.” This prompted the inclusion of nonrandomized studies that “lowered the quality of the evidence,” they note.
Nevertheless, “these preliminary findings indicate the potential of ketamine-assisted psychotherapy for PTSD,” the investigators write.
A promising avenue?
In a comment, Dan Iosifescu, MD, professor of psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, called the combination of ketamine and psychotherapy in PTSD “a very promising treatment avenue.”
Dr. Iosifescu, who was not involved with the research, noted that “several PTSD-focused psychotherapies are ultimately very effective but very hard to tolerate for participants.” For example, prolonged exposure therapy has dropout rates as high as 50%.
In addition, ketamine has rapid but not sustained effects in PTSD, he said.
“So in theory, a course of ketamine could help PTSD patients improve rapidly and tolerate the psychotherapy, which could provide sustained benefits,” he added.
However, Dr. Iosifescu cautioned that the data supporting this “is very sparse for now.”
He also noted that the meta-analysis included only “four tiny studies” and had only 34 total participants. In addition, several of the studies had no comparison group and the study designs were all different – “both with respect to the administration of ketamine and to the paired PTSD psychotherapy.”
For this reason, “any conclusions are only a very preliminary suggestion that this may be a fruitful avenue,” he said.
Dr. Iosifescu added that additional studies on this topic are ongoing. The largest one at the Veterans Administration will hopefully include 100 participants and “will provide more reliable evidence for this important topic,” he said.
The study was indirectly supported by the Internal Faculty Grant from the department of psychiatry, Queen’s University. Dr. Iosifescu reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY
Physician pleads guilty to 52 counts in opioid scheme
Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.
Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.
Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.
The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.
In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.
Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.
Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.
Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.
The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.
Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.
The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.
Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.
Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.
The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.
In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.
Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.
Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.
Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.
The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.
Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.
The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Jeffrey B. Sutton, DO, a neuromuscular medicine specialist, pled guilty on January 30 in federal court to 31 counts of illegally prescribing opioids and other controlled substances, 1 count of illegally distributing controlled substances, and 20 counts of health care fraud.
Prosecutors said Dr. Sutton admitted that he ignored warnings from prescription drug management organizations, insurers, and state authorities that he was prescribing excessively high dosages of opioids.
Dr. Sutton also admitted to ignoring patient requests to lower dosages and that he also ignored signs that patients were selling prescribed medications or otherwise engaging in illicit activity, including violations of a “pain management agreement” that he required them to sign.
The fraud counts pertained to Dr. Sutton billing Medicare, Medicaid, and other insurers for medically unnecessary visits that he required of patients so that he could prescribe inappropriate or unnecessary opioids.
In the charging document shared with this news organization, prosecutors said Dr. Sutton had sex with at least three patients, including during office visits and outside of the office. Occasionally, the physician would give opioids or other controlled substances – often benzodiazepines – to these patients, without a prescription or valid medical need.
Dr. Sutton escalated the dosage for one of those patients, even as the subjective pain score did not improve and when the patient’s urine tests showed the presence of THC and buprenorphine, but not any of the prescribed medications.
Another patient came to Dr. Sutton in 2007 with a warning that she had a history of “narcotic-seeking” behavior and diagnoses of depression, anxiety, paranoid schizophrenia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
The patient was hospitalized in 2018 for complications from benzodiazepine use (prescribed by Dr. Sutton). She weighed 80 pounds at the time. Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe benzodiazepines and extreme doses of opioids – in excess of 2,000 morphine equivalent dose – “despite recognizing and documenting repeated instances of noncompliance with treatment for psychiatric conditions, and despite the known contraindications of long-term opioid use for patients with these mental illnesses,” according to the charging document.
Dr. Sutton continued to prescribe opioids despite two hospitalizations for overdoses, more than 20 failed urine drug screens that showed presence of illicit drugs such as cocaine, and documented excessive use of alprazolam (Xanax) and methadone.
The physician surrendered his Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration of Controlled Substances Privileges in February 2022 “as an indication of your good faith in desiring to remedy any incorrect or unlawful practices on your part,” according to a letter to Dr. Sutton from the State Medical Board of Ohio. In that September 2022 letter, the Board notified Dr. Sutton of its intention to possibly suspend or revoke his license.
Dr. Sutton did not request a hearing, and the Board permanently revoked his medical license on January 16.
The court will sentence Dr. Sutton on May 23, according to a report by WFMJ.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Toxic chemicals we consume without knowing it
Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.
Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.
Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
Microplastics
“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.
Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.
Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.
According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.
Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.
Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
Phthalates
Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.
Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.
To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.
The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.
Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
Bisphenol A (BPA)
BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.
Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.
As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.
Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.
Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.
The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
Pesticides
The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.
Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.
A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.
Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”
PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.
The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.
Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.
To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”
In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”
Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.
Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.
Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
Microplastics
“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.
Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.
Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.
According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.
Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.
Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
Phthalates
Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.
Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.
To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.
The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.
Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
Bisphenol A (BPA)
BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.
Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.
As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.
Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.
Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.
The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
Pesticides
The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.
Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.
A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.
Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”
PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.
The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.
Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.
To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”
In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”
Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Life expectancy is falling precipitously. Three-fourths of Americans are overweight or obese, half have diabetes or prediabetes, and a majority are metabolically unhealthy. Furthermore, the rates of allergic, inflammatory, and autoimmune diseases are rising at rates of 3%-9% per year in the West, far faster than the speed of genetic change in this population.
Of course, diet and lifestyle are major factors behind such trends, but a grossly underappreciated driver in what ails us is the role of environmental toxins and endocrine-disrupting chemicals. In years past, these factors have largely evaded the traditional Western medical establishment; however, mounting evidence now supports their significance in fertility, metabolic health, and cancer.
Although several industrial chemicals and toxins have been identified as carcinogens and have subsequently been regulated, many more remain persistent in the environment and continue to be freely used. It is therefore incumbent upon both the general public and clinicians to be knowledgeable about these exposures. Here, we review some of the most common exposures and the substantial health risks associated with them, along with some general guidance around best practices for how to minimize exposure.
Microplastics
“Microplastics” is a term used to describe small fragments or particles of plastic breakdown or microbeads from household or personal care products, measuring less than 5 mm in length.
Plastic waste is accumulating at alarming and devastating proportions – by 2050, it is estimated that by weight, there will be more plastic than fish in the oceans. That translates into hundreds of thousands of tons of microplastics and trillions of these particles in the seas. A recent study demonstrated that microplastics were present in the bloodstream in the majority of 22 otherwise healthy participants.
Since the 1950s, plastic exposure has been shown to promote tumorigenesis in animal studies, and in vitro studies have demonstrated the toxicity of microplastics at the cellular level. However, it is not well known whether the plastic itself is toxic or if it simply serves as a carrier for other environmental toxins to bioaccumulate.
According to Tasha Stoiber, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, “Microplastics have been widely detected in fish and seafood, as well as other products like bottled water, beer, honey, and tap water.” The EWG states there are no formal advisories on fish consumption to avoid exposure to microplastics at the moment.
Pressure also is mounting for a ban on microbeads in personal care products.
Until such bans are put in place, it is advised to avoid single-use plastics, favor reusable tote bags for grocery shopping rather than plastic bags, and opt for loose leaf tea or paper tea bags rather than mesh-based alternatives.
Phthalates
Phthalates are chemicals used to make plastics soft and durable, as well as to bind fragrances. They are commonly found in household items such as vinyl (for example, flooring, shower curtains) and fragrances, air fresheners, and perfumes.
Phthalates are known hormone-disrupting chemicals, exposure to which has been associated with abnormal sexual and brain development in children, as well as lower levels of testosterone in men. Exposures are thought to occur via inhalation, ingestion, and skin contact; however, fasting studies demonstrate that a majority of exposure is probably food related.
To avoid phthalate exposures, recommendations include avoiding polyvinyl chloride plastics (particularly food containers, plastic wrap, and children’s toys), which are identifiable by the recycle code number 3, as well as air fresheners and fragranced products.
The EWG’s Skin Deep database provides an important resource on phthalate-free personal care products.
Despite pressure from consumer advocacy groups, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet banned phthalates in food packaging.
Bisphenol A (BPA)
BPA is a chemical additive used to make clear and hard polycarbonate plastics, as well as epoxy and thermal papers. BPA is one of the highest-volume chemicals, with roughly 6 billion pounds produced each year. BPA is traditionally found in many clear plastic bottles and sippy cups, as well as in the lining of canned foods.
Structurally, BPA acts as an estrogen mimetic and has been associated with cardiovascular disease, obesity, and male sexual dysfunction. Since 2012, BPA has been banned in sippy cups and baby bottles, but there is some debate as to whether its replacements (bisphenol S and bisphenol F) are any safer; they appear to have similar hormonal effects as BPA.
As with phthalates, the majority of ingestion is thought to be food related. BPA has been found in more than 90% of a representative study population in the United States.
Guidance advises avoiding polycarbonate plastics (identifiable with the recycling code number 7), as well as avoiding handling thermal papers such as tickets and receipts, if possible. Food and beverages should be stored in glass or stainless steel. If plastic must be used, opt for polycarbonate- and polyvinyl chloride–free plastics, and food and beverages should never be reheated in plastic containers or wrapping. Canned foods should ideally be avoided, particularly canned tunas and condensed soups. If canned products are bought, they should ideally be BPA free.
Dioxins and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Dioxins are mainly the byproducts of industrial practices; they are released after incineration, trash burning, and fires. PCBs, which are somewhat structurally related to dioxins, were previously found in products such as flame retardants and coolants. Dioxins and PCBs are often grouped in the same category under the umbrella term “persistent organic pollutants” because they break down slowly and remain in the environment even after emissions have been curbed.
Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin, perhaps the best-known dioxin, is a known carcinogen. Dioxins also have been associated with a host of health implications in development, immunity, and reproductive and endocrine systems. Higher levels of PCB exposure have also been associated with an increased risk for mortality from cardiovascular disease.
Notably, dioxin emissions have been reduced by 90% since the 1980s, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of PCBs in industrial manufacturing since 1979. However, environmental dioxins and PCBs still enter the food chain and accumulate in fat.
The best ways to avoid exposures are through limiting meat, fish, and dairy consumption and trimming the skin and fat from meats. The level of dioxins and PCBs found in meat, eggs, fish, and dairy are approximately 5-10 times higher than they are in plant-based foods. Research has shown that farmed salmon is likely to be the most PCB-contaminated protein source in the U.S. diet; however, newer forms of land-based and sustainable aquaculture probably avoid this exposure.
Pesticides
The growth of modern monoculture agriculture in the United States over the past century has coincided with a dramatic surge in the use of industrial pesticides. In fact, over 90% of the U.S. population have pesticides in their urine and blood, regardless of where they live. Exposures are thought to be food related.
Approximately 1 billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the United States, including nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate, which has been identified as a probable carcinogen by European agencies. The EPA has not yet reached this conclusion, although the matter is currently being litigated.
A large European prospective cohort trial demonstrated a lower risk for cancer in those with a greater frequency of self-reported organic food consumption. In addition to cancer risk, relatively elevated blood levels of a pesticide known as beta-hexachlorocyclohexane (B-HCH) are associated with higher all-cause mortality. Also, exposure to DDE – a metabolite of DDT, a chlorinated pesticide heavily used in the 1940s-1960s that still persists in the environment today – has been shown to increase the risk for Alzheimer’s-type dementia as well as overall cognitive decline.
Because these chlorinated pesticides are often fat soluble, they seem to accumulate in animal products. Therefore, people consuming a vegetarian diet have been found to have lower levels of B-HCH. This has led to the recommendation that consumers of produce should favor organic over conventional, if possible. Here too, the EWG provides an important resource to consumers in the form of shopper guides regarding pesticides in produce.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
PFAS are a group of fluorinated compounds discovered in the 1930s. Their chemical composition includes a durable carbon-fluoride bond, giving them a persistence within the environment that has led to their being referred to as “forever chemicals.”
PFAS have been detected in the blood of 98% of Americans, and in the rainwater of locations as far afield as Tibet and Antarctica. Even low levels of exposure have been associated with an increased risk for cancer, liver disease, low birth weight, and hormonal disruption.
The properties of PFAS also make them both durable at very high heat and water repellent. Notoriously, the chemical was used by 3M to make Scotchgard for carpets and fabrics and by Dupont to make Teflon for nonstick coating of pots and pans. Although perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was removed from nonstick cookware in 2013, PFAS – a family of thousands of synthetic compounds – remain common in fast-food packaging, water- and stain-repellent clothing, firefighting foam, and personal care products. PFAS are released into the environment during the breakdown of these consumer and industrial products, as well as from dumping from waste facilities.
Alarmingly, the EWG notes that up to 200 million Americans may be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. In March 2021, the EPA announced that they will be regulating PFAS in drinking water; however, the regulations have not been finalized. Currently, it is up to individual states to test for its presence in the water. The EWG has compiled a map of all known PFAS contamination sites.
To avoid or prevent exposures from PFAS, recommendations include filtering tap water with either reverse osmosis or activated carbon filters, as well as avoiding fast food and carry-out food, if possible, and consumer products labeled as “water resistant,” “stain-resistant,” and “nonstick.”
In a testament to how harmful these chemicals are, the EPA recently revised their lifetime health advisories for PFAS, such as PFOA, to 0.004 parts per trillion, which is more than 10,000 times smaller than the previous limit of 70 parts per trillion. The EPA also has proposed formally designating certain PFAS chemicals as “hazardous substances.”
Dr. Goel, clinical assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Physicians and clinicians should be required to get flu shots: Ethicist
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.
I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.
In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.
Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.
Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.
Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.
There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.
On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.
Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.
It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.
I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.
Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.
I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.
I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.
In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.
Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.
Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.
Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.
There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.
On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.
Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.
It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.
I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.
Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.
I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
This transcript has been edited for clarity.
Hi. I’m Art Caplan. I’m at the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, where I’m the director.
I’ve long believed that every health care institution – nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, home care, hospice – should require flu shots for all doctors and all nurses because it is the easiest, cheapest, and most ethical way to protect the workforce, who you need to be in there when flu outbreaks take place, and to protect patients against getting the flu when they come into hospital settings and get exposed to health care workers who may have the flu already but don’t know it.
In a recent poll, I was happy to see that the majority of physicians surveyed agreed with me: 65% said they supported mandatory flu vaccination in hospitals and only 23% said they did not. I think flu vaccination is something that has already been shown to be useful and important, not only in stopping people from getting the flu but also in making sure that they don’t get as sick when they get the flu.
Just like COVID-19 vaccination, it doesn’t always prevent somebody from getting infected, but if you get it, it keeps you from winding up sick at home, or worse – from dying and winding up in the morgue. Flu kills many, many people every year. We don’t want that to happen. A flu vaccine will really help prevent deaths, help prevent the number of symptoms that somebody gets, and will get people back to work. The benefits are pretty clear.
Does the flu vaccine work equally well every year? It does not. Some years, the strains that are picked for the vaccine don’t match the ones that circulate, and we don’t get as much protection as we hoped for. I think the safety side is so strong that it’s worth making the investment and the effort to promote mandatory flu vaccination.
Can you opt out on religious grounds? Well, some hospitals permit that at New York University. You have to go before a committee and make a case that your exemption on religious grounds is based on an authentic set of beliefs that are deeply held, and not just something you thought up the day before flu vaccine requirements went into effect.
There may be room for some exemptions – obviously, for health reasons. If people think that the flu vaccine is dangerous to them and can get a physician to agree and sign off that they are not appropriate to vaccinate, okay.
On the other hand, if you’re working with an especially vulnerable population – newborns, people who are immunosuppressed – then I think you’ve got to be vaccinated and you shouldn’t be working around people who are at huge risk of getting the flu if you refuse to be vaccinated or, for that matter, can’t be vaccinated.
Would I extend these mandates? Yes, I would. I’d extend them to COVID-19 vaccination and to measles vaccination. I think physicians and nurses should be good role models. They should get vaccinated. We know that the best available evidence says that vaccination for infectious disease is safe. It is really the best thing we can do to combat a variety of diseases such as the flu and COVID-19.
It seems to me that, in addition, the data that are out there in terms of risks from flu and COVID-19 – deaths in places like nursing homes – are overwhelming about the importance of trying to get staff vaccinated so they don’t bring flu into an institutionalized population. This is similar for prison health and many other settings where people are kept close together and staff may move from place to place, rotating from institution to institution, spreading infectious disease.
I’m going to go with the poll. Let’s keep pushing for health care workers to do the right thing and to be good role models. Let’s get everybody a flu vaccination. Let’s extend it to a COVID-19 vaccination and its boosters.
Let’s try to show the nation that health care is going to be guided by good science, a duty to one’s own health, and a duty to one’s patients. It shouldn’t be political. It should be based on what works best for the interests of health care providers and those they care for.
I’m Art Caplan at the New York University Grossman School of Medicine. Thanks for watching.
Dr. Caplan has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Served as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for Johnson & Johnson’s Panel for Compassionate Drug Use (unpaid position). Serves as a contributing author and advisor for Medscape. A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.