This week, we celebrate our nation’s birth in a national and individual display of our patriotic attachment to this country. To understand how that patriotic attachment arises, we need to step back and look at the ways in which our brains change and define how each of us develops a sense of Self — which includes our self-definition as Americans.

For each of us, personhood is an almost miraculous product of our brain’s plasticity — the brain’s ability to change chemically, structurally, and functionally, based on our life experiences — arising from near countless moments of change in the wiring of our brain.

The incredibly complex remodeling that created “you” is a product, of course, of your very complicated, unique passage in life. You have a repertoire of skills and ability; you have stories and understanding and a history of sensing and acting and thinking in the world that is, in detail, unique only to you and your experiences.

As your brain created its model of your world by recording “what goes with what” at each brief moment of time, your brain — that most complicated and wonderful of “machines” on planet Earth — also associated billions of moments of feeling and action and thought with their source, your Self.

Because we primarily construct our model of the world through our eyes and ears, it’s not surprising that the emergent Self that is located somewhere in the center of your head behind your eyes and between your ears. Through billions of contacts with the surfaces of your hide and sensory organs, you have embodied yourself.
 

Your sense of ‘us’

These same neurologic processes extend beyond our physical beings to incorporate other contributors to our well-being into our personhoods. Loving parents, siblings, friends — and others in your clans and tribes and nations — literally grow into your personhood by these same self-associating processes. These relationships are supported in mutual identity by all of the tokens and icons and charms and customs that collectively define you and enable a sense of “us.”

Put another way, Mother Nature (or, in another cultural perspective, our Creator) has designed our brains to incorporate all of those who are close to us — and more broadly, other individuals in our clan or tribe or nation — to be a part of each of us.

Humans are highly social creatures. When we rise up and risk our lives to defend our friends, family, or cultural “in-groups,” we are literally fighting to defend ourselves — because those other individuals have grown into our very being. In defending them, we are literally defending a part of ourselves.

From one human perspective, this attachment to family and clan and tribe and nation is obviously key for our survival. We are an individually vulnerable but collectively powerful species, and attachment and mutual support are a key to our personal and collective successes in life.

From another perspective, there is also a dark side to this “gift of nature.”

We draw lines in substantially arbitrary locations across the surface of planet Earth, or we may define our self as belonging to a group in a political or social or religious context, or sect. Our tribalism can support a generally strong level of support and succor for fellow humans on our side of that line, while we regard those just across the line as undeserving of our support. If they offend us, they may become targets of our capacity for cruelty.

Our allegiances can be both wonderful and harmful.
 

The individuality of us

As we celebrate this holiday — a favorite day on my personal calendar — I am compelled to reflect on the fact that America was designed to be fractious. We Americans are not required to all operate like “peas in the pod.”

While we, as a nation, often fail to live up to our ideals, when we pursue the highest standards of liberty, we celebrate diversity, difference, and the ability of each member of our tribe to find their own path.

In a very real sense, the great American “invention” was to create a nation in which we could all find a wonderful place of our own, with the sympathy and protection of fellow citizens, and with liberty and justice for all.

Happy Independence Day to my American tribe!



Michael Merzenich, PhD, is often credited with discovering lifelong plasticity, with being the first to harness plasticity for human benefit (in his co-invention of the cochlear implant), and for pioneering the field of plasticity-based computerized brain exercise. He is professor emeritus at UCSF and a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience, and he has been honored by each of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. He may be most widely known for a series of specials on the brain on public television. His current focus is BrainHQ, a brain exercise app. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health Have a 5% or greater equity interest in: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc.; National Institutes of Health.

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

This week, we celebrate our nation’s birth in a national and individual display of our patriotic attachment to this country. To understand how that patriotic attachment arises, we need to step back and look at the ways in which our brains change and define how each of us develops a sense of Self — which includes our self-definition as Americans.

For each of us, personhood is an almost miraculous product of our brain’s plasticity — the brain’s ability to change chemically, structurally, and functionally, based on our life experiences — arising from near countless moments of change in the wiring of our brain.

The incredibly complex remodeling that created “you” is a product, of course, of your very complicated, unique passage in life. You have a repertoire of skills and ability; you have stories and understanding and a history of sensing and acting and thinking in the world that is, in detail, unique only to you and your experiences.

As your brain created its model of your world by recording “what goes with what” at each brief moment of time, your brain — that most complicated and wonderful of “machines” on planet Earth — also associated billions of moments of feeling and action and thought with their source, your Self.

Because we primarily construct our model of the world through our eyes and ears, it’s not surprising that the emergent Self that is located somewhere in the center of your head behind your eyes and between your ears. Through billions of contacts with the surfaces of your hide and sensory organs, you have embodied yourself.
 

Your sense of ‘us’

These same neurologic processes extend beyond our physical beings to incorporate other contributors to our well-being into our personhoods. Loving parents, siblings, friends — and others in your clans and tribes and nations — literally grow into your personhood by these same self-associating processes. These relationships are supported in mutual identity by all of the tokens and icons and charms and customs that collectively define you and enable a sense of “us.”

Put another way, Mother Nature (or, in another cultural perspective, our Creator) has designed our brains to incorporate all of those who are close to us — and more broadly, other individuals in our clan or tribe or nation — to be a part of each of us.

Humans are highly social creatures. When we rise up and risk our lives to defend our friends, family, or cultural “in-groups,” we are literally fighting to defend ourselves — because those other individuals have grown into our very being. In defending them, we are literally defending a part of ourselves.

From one human perspective, this attachment to family and clan and tribe and nation is obviously key for our survival. We are an individually vulnerable but collectively powerful species, and attachment and mutual support are a key to our personal and collective successes in life.

From another perspective, there is also a dark side to this “gift of nature.”

We draw lines in substantially arbitrary locations across the surface of planet Earth, or we may define our self as belonging to a group in a political or social or religious context, or sect. Our tribalism can support a generally strong level of support and succor for fellow humans on our side of that line, while we regard those just across the line as undeserving of our support. If they offend us, they may become targets of our capacity for cruelty.

Our allegiances can be both wonderful and harmful.
 

The individuality of us

As we celebrate this holiday — a favorite day on my personal calendar — I am compelled to reflect on the fact that America was designed to be fractious. We Americans are not required to all operate like “peas in the pod.”

While we, as a nation, often fail to live up to our ideals, when we pursue the highest standards of liberty, we celebrate diversity, difference, and the ability of each member of our tribe to find their own path.

In a very real sense, the great American “invention” was to create a nation in which we could all find a wonderful place of our own, with the sympathy and protection of fellow citizens, and with liberty and justice for all.

Happy Independence Day to my American tribe!



Michael Merzenich, PhD, is often credited with discovering lifelong plasticity, with being the first to harness plasticity for human benefit (in his co-invention of the cochlear implant), and for pioneering the field of plasticity-based computerized brain exercise. He is professor emeritus at UCSF and a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience, and he has been honored by each of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. He may be most widely known for a series of specials on the brain on public television. His current focus is BrainHQ, a brain exercise app. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health Have a 5% or greater equity interest in: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc.; National Institutes of Health.

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

This week, we celebrate our nation’s birth in a national and individual display of our patriotic attachment to this country. To understand how that patriotic attachment arises, we need to step back and look at the ways in which our brains change and define how each of us develops a sense of Self — which includes our self-definition as Americans.

For each of us, personhood is an almost miraculous product of our brain’s plasticity — the brain’s ability to change chemically, structurally, and functionally, based on our life experiences — arising from near countless moments of change in the wiring of our brain.

The incredibly complex remodeling that created “you” is a product, of course, of your very complicated, unique passage in life. You have a repertoire of skills and ability; you have stories and understanding and a history of sensing and acting and thinking in the world that is, in detail, unique only to you and your experiences.

As your brain created its model of your world by recording “what goes with what” at each brief moment of time, your brain — that most complicated and wonderful of “machines” on planet Earth — also associated billions of moments of feeling and action and thought with their source, your Self.

Because we primarily construct our model of the world through our eyes and ears, it’s not surprising that the emergent Self that is located somewhere in the center of your head behind your eyes and between your ears. Through billions of contacts with the surfaces of your hide and sensory organs, you have embodied yourself.
 

Your sense of ‘us’

These same neurologic processes extend beyond our physical beings to incorporate other contributors to our well-being into our personhoods. Loving parents, siblings, friends — and others in your clans and tribes and nations — literally grow into your personhood by these same self-associating processes. These relationships are supported in mutual identity by all of the tokens and icons and charms and customs that collectively define you and enable a sense of “us.”

Put another way, Mother Nature (or, in another cultural perspective, our Creator) has designed our brains to incorporate all of those who are close to us — and more broadly, other individuals in our clan or tribe or nation — to be a part of each of us.

Humans are highly social creatures. When we rise up and risk our lives to defend our friends, family, or cultural “in-groups,” we are literally fighting to defend ourselves — because those other individuals have grown into our very being. In defending them, we are literally defending a part of ourselves.

From one human perspective, this attachment to family and clan and tribe and nation is obviously key for our survival. We are an individually vulnerable but collectively powerful species, and attachment and mutual support are a key to our personal and collective successes in life.

From another perspective, there is also a dark side to this “gift of nature.”

We draw lines in substantially arbitrary locations across the surface of planet Earth, or we may define our self as belonging to a group in a political or social or religious context, or sect. Our tribalism can support a generally strong level of support and succor for fellow humans on our side of that line, while we regard those just across the line as undeserving of our support. If they offend us, they may become targets of our capacity for cruelty.

Our allegiances can be both wonderful and harmful.
 

The individuality of us

As we celebrate this holiday — a favorite day on my personal calendar — I am compelled to reflect on the fact that America was designed to be fractious. We Americans are not required to all operate like “peas in the pod.”

While we, as a nation, often fail to live up to our ideals, when we pursue the highest standards of liberty, we celebrate diversity, difference, and the ability of each member of our tribe to find their own path.

In a very real sense, the great American “invention” was to create a nation in which we could all find a wonderful place of our own, with the sympathy and protection of fellow citizens, and with liberty and justice for all.

Happy Independence Day to my American tribe!



Michael Merzenich, PhD, is often credited with discovering lifelong plasticity, with being the first to harness plasticity for human benefit (in his co-invention of the cochlear implant), and for pioneering the field of plasticity-based computerized brain exercise. He is professor emeritus at UCSF and a Kavli Laureate in Neuroscience, and he has been honored by each of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. He may be most widely known for a series of specials on the brain on public television. His current focus is BrainHQ, a brain exercise app. He has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health Have a 5% or greater equity interest in: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Posit Science Corporation; Stronger Brains Inc.; National Institutes of Health.

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

The TRIPLETE study from Italy is a simply designed phase 3 clinical trial in which 435 patients with newly diagnosed RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized in a 1:1 fashionto receive either modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (mFOLFOXIRI) plus panitumumab or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX) plus panitumumab. In both arms, over 90% of patients were aged ≤70 years old, and 12% had right-sided disease. These factors are critical because older patients are less likely to benefit from multidrug chemotherapy, and patients with right-sided disease would not be expected to respond to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, irrespective of RAS status. The study's primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guidelines (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints included safety and progression-free survival (PFS). ORR was 73% in the experimental arm and 76% in the control arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.87; P = .526). There were no differences in PFS, early tumor shrinkage rate, R0 resection rate, or depth of response either.

Though I would have liked to have seen a leucovorin calcium (folinic acid), fluorouracil,and irinotecan hydrochloride (FOLFIRI) arm as well, I believe that these results are enough to cast significant doubt on the burgeoning belief that in metastatic colorectal cancer, more chemotherapy is better for those who can tolerate it.

AtezoTRIBE, also out of Italy, is a randomized, phase 2 study that randomly selected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer to receive FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab. I am less sanguine about this study design, vis-à-vis the TRIPLETE study, as patients in AtezoTRIBE were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with two thirds therefore receiving treatment on the experimental arm. The 2:1 randomization was rationalized on the basis of the supposition that patients are more likely to enroll on a study if they know they have a greater chance of receiving a novel treatment. However, I have never seen a study supporting that hypothesis with data, and a 2:1 randomization significantly reduces statistical power. Patients were stratified on the basis of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and Immunoscore IC (high or low as determined by CD8 cell density, programmed death ligand 1 cell density, as well as proximity and clustering of the two cell groups). There were similar rates of high TMB (7% control and 8% experimental) and high Immunoscore IC (25% control and 22% experimental) in both arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, the experimental arm had astatistically improved median PFS (13.1 vs 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018). Serious adverse events were reported in 27% vs 26% of patients, respectively. Of note, the subgroup analysis shows that PFS improvement was accrued in the experimental arm by patients with either high TMB, high Immunoscore IC, or both. Further studies will be needed in patients prospectively selected for high Immunoscore IC to see whether these observations hold. If so, Immunoscore IC could eventually replace TMB as a marker of potential immune therapy responsiveness in microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer.

The TRIPLETE study from Italy is a simply designed phase 3 clinical trial in which 435 patients with newly diagnosed RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized in a 1:1 fashionto receive either modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (mFOLFOXIRI) plus panitumumab or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX) plus panitumumab. In both arms, over 90% of patients were aged ≤70 years old, and 12% had right-sided disease. These factors are critical because older patients are less likely to benefit from multidrug chemotherapy, and patients with right-sided disease would not be expected to respond to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, irrespective of RAS status. The study's primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guidelines (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints included safety and progression-free survival (PFS). ORR was 73% in the experimental arm and 76% in the control arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.87; P = .526). There were no differences in PFS, early tumor shrinkage rate, R0 resection rate, or depth of response either.

Though I would have liked to have seen a leucovorin calcium (folinic acid), fluorouracil,and irinotecan hydrochloride (FOLFIRI) arm as well, I believe that these results are enough to cast significant doubt on the burgeoning belief that in metastatic colorectal cancer, more chemotherapy is better for those who can tolerate it.

AtezoTRIBE, also out of Italy, is a randomized, phase 2 study that randomly selected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer to receive FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab. I am less sanguine about this study design, vis-à-vis the TRIPLETE study, as patients in AtezoTRIBE were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with two thirds therefore receiving treatment on the experimental arm. The 2:1 randomization was rationalized on the basis of the supposition that patients are more likely to enroll on a study if they know they have a greater chance of receiving a novel treatment. However, I have never seen a study supporting that hypothesis with data, and a 2:1 randomization significantly reduces statistical power. Patients were stratified on the basis of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and Immunoscore IC (high or low as determined by CD8 cell density, programmed death ligand 1 cell density, as well as proximity and clustering of the two cell groups). There were similar rates of high TMB (7% control and 8% experimental) and high Immunoscore IC (25% control and 22% experimental) in both arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, the experimental arm had astatistically improved median PFS (13.1 vs 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018). Serious adverse events were reported in 27% vs 26% of patients, respectively. Of note, the subgroup analysis shows that PFS improvement was accrued in the experimental arm by patients with either high TMB, high Immunoscore IC, or both. Further studies will be needed in patients prospectively selected for high Immunoscore IC to see whether these observations hold. If so, Immunoscore IC could eventually replace TMB as a marker of potential immune therapy responsiveness in microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer.

The TRIPLETE study from Italy is a simply designed phase 3 clinical trial in which 435 patients with newly diagnosed RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer were randomized in a 1:1 fashionto receive either modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (mFOLFOXIRI) plus panitumumab or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX) plus panitumumab. In both arms, over 90% of patients were aged ≤70 years old, and 12% had right-sided disease. These factors are critical because older patients are less likely to benefit from multidrug chemotherapy, and patients with right-sided disease would not be expected to respond to epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors, irrespective of RAS status. The study's primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours guidelines (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints included safety and progression-free survival (PFS). ORR was 73% in the experimental arm and 76% in the control arm (odds ratio [OR] 0.87; P = .526). There were no differences in PFS, early tumor shrinkage rate, R0 resection rate, or depth of response either.

Though I would have liked to have seen a leucovorin calcium (folinic acid), fluorouracil,and irinotecan hydrochloride (FOLFIRI) arm as well, I believe that these results are enough to cast significant doubt on the burgeoning belief that in metastatic colorectal cancer, more chemotherapy is better for those who can tolerate it.

AtezoTRIBE, also out of Italy, is a randomized, phase 2 study that randomly selected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer to receive FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab. I am less sanguine about this study design, vis-à-vis the TRIPLETE study, as patients in AtezoTRIBE were randomized in a 2:1 fashion, with two thirds therefore receiving treatment on the experimental arm. The 2:1 randomization was rationalized on the basis of the supposition that patients are more likely to enroll on a study if they know they have a greater chance of receiving a novel treatment. However, I have never seen a study supporting that hypothesis with data, and a 2:1 randomization significantly reduces statistical power. Patients were stratified on the basis of tumor mutational burden (TMB) and Immunoscore IC (high or low as determined by CD8 cell density, programmed death ligand 1 cell density, as well as proximity and clustering of the two cell groups). There were similar rates of high TMB (7% control and 8% experimental) and high Immunoscore IC (25% control and 22% experimental) in both arms. The primary endpoint was PFS. At a median follow-up of 19.9 months, the experimental arm had astatistically improved median PFS (13.1 vs 11.5 months; adjusted hazard ratio 0.70; P = .018). Serious adverse events were reported in 27% vs 26% of patients, respectively. Of note, the subgroup analysis shows that PFS improvement was accrued in the experimental arm by patients with either high TMB, high Immunoscore IC, or both. Further studies will be needed in patients prospectively selected for high Immunoscore IC to see whether these observations hold. If so, Immunoscore IC could eventually replace TMB as a marker of potential immune therapy responsiveness in microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer.

Research continues to demonstrate the benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists or co-agonists for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Arslanian and the AWARD-PEDS investigators have published the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing once-weekly dulaglutide vs.placebo in youths between 10 and17 years of age with T2D. A1c was reduced by 1.2% with 0.75 mg dulaglutide and by 1.5% with a 1.5 mg dose, compared with placebo. Of note, there was no significant weight difference between dulaglutide and placebo, similar to what has been found with liraglutide and extended-release exenatide in similar populations. This is also contrary to the weight loss that is found with GLP-1R agonists in adult studies. While the GLP-1R agonist class provides a nice glycemic benefit in youth with T2D, it remains perplexing as to why weight loss has not been demonstrated in clinical trials.

In the SURPASS trials of the GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor co-agonist tirzepatide, there was robust A1c lowering and weight loss among individuals with T2D. A meta-analysis published by Karagiannis and colleagues of seven tirzepatide trials has shown dose-dependent superiority for A1c and weight compared withplacebo, GLP-1R agonists, and basal insulin. Gastrointestinal side effects were similar to what we have come to expect with GLP-1R agonist–based therapies. Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of T2D, is a welcome addition to the pharmacotherapy toolkit.

In the SURPASS-2 study, all doses of tirzepatide were superior to 1 mg semaglutide for both A1c and body weight reduction. Following the recent approval of 2 mg semaglutide by the FDA for the management of T2D, Vadher and colleagues explored how tirzepatide compares with 2 mg semaglutide via an indirect treatment comparison. Using data from the SUSTAIN-FORTE and SURPASS-2 trials, these authors found that A1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for 10 and 15 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide and similar for 5 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, this analysis suggests greater efficacy with tirzepatide compared with high-dose semaglutide in T2D.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides information about glycemia that is not available with A1c and capillary glucose monitoring. The coefficient of variation (CV) calculated from CGM is a good measure of glycemic variability, with a goal of ≤36%. There are inconsistent data for the association of CV with microvascular or macrovascular complications and very little study of the relationship between CV and long-term mortality. Mo and colleagues investigated the association between short-term glycemic variability measured by CV and all-cause mortality in a prospective study of 1839 individuals with T2D and a well-controlled glucose profile monitored by CGM. After about 7 years of follow-up, a greater baseline CV was associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, with a greater than twofold risk fo rmortality with a baseline CV of >35% compared witha baseline CV of ≤20%. This study suggests that clinicians should pay attention when CV is high, even with otherwise good glycemic control. With the expanding use of CGM, long-term intervention studies are needed to determine the role of glycemic variability(CV) in the development of complications and hard outcomes.

Research continues to demonstrate the benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists or co-agonists for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Arslanian and the AWARD-PEDS investigators have published the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing once-weekly dulaglutide vs.placebo in youths between 10 and17 years of age with T2D. A1c was reduced by 1.2% with 0.75 mg dulaglutide and by 1.5% with a 1.5 mg dose, compared with placebo. Of note, there was no significant weight difference between dulaglutide and placebo, similar to what has been found with liraglutide and extended-release exenatide in similar populations. This is also contrary to the weight loss that is found with GLP-1R agonists in adult studies. While the GLP-1R agonist class provides a nice glycemic benefit in youth with T2D, it remains perplexing as to why weight loss has not been demonstrated in clinical trials.

In the SURPASS trials of the GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor co-agonist tirzepatide, there was robust A1c lowering and weight loss among individuals with T2D. A meta-analysis published by Karagiannis and colleagues of seven tirzepatide trials has shown dose-dependent superiority for A1c and weight compared withplacebo, GLP-1R agonists, and basal insulin. Gastrointestinal side effects were similar to what we have come to expect with GLP-1R agonist–based therapies. Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of T2D, is a welcome addition to the pharmacotherapy toolkit.

In the SURPASS-2 study, all doses of tirzepatide were superior to 1 mg semaglutide for both A1c and body weight reduction. Following the recent approval of 2 mg semaglutide by the FDA for the management of T2D, Vadher and colleagues explored how tirzepatide compares with 2 mg semaglutide via an indirect treatment comparison. Using data from the SUSTAIN-FORTE and SURPASS-2 trials, these authors found that A1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for 10 and 15 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide and similar for 5 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, this analysis suggests greater efficacy with tirzepatide compared with high-dose semaglutide in T2D.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides information about glycemia that is not available with A1c and capillary glucose monitoring. The coefficient of variation (CV) calculated from CGM is a good measure of glycemic variability, with a goal of ≤36%. There are inconsistent data for the association of CV with microvascular or macrovascular complications and very little study of the relationship between CV and long-term mortality. Mo and colleagues investigated the association between short-term glycemic variability measured by CV and all-cause mortality in a prospective study of 1839 individuals with T2D and a well-controlled glucose profile monitored by CGM. After about 7 years of follow-up, a greater baseline CV was associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, with a greater than twofold risk fo rmortality with a baseline CV of >35% compared witha baseline CV of ≤20%. This study suggests that clinicians should pay attention when CV is high, even with otherwise good glycemic control. With the expanding use of CGM, long-term intervention studies are needed to determine the role of glycemic variability(CV) in the development of complications and hard outcomes.

Research continues to demonstrate the benefits of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists or co-agonists for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Arslanian and the AWARD-PEDS investigators have published the results of a randomized controlled trial comparing once-weekly dulaglutide vs.placebo in youths between 10 and17 years of age with T2D. A1c was reduced by 1.2% with 0.75 mg dulaglutide and by 1.5% with a 1.5 mg dose, compared with placebo. Of note, there was no significant weight difference between dulaglutide and placebo, similar to what has been found with liraglutide and extended-release exenatide in similar populations. This is also contrary to the weight loss that is found with GLP-1R agonists in adult studies. While the GLP-1R agonist class provides a nice glycemic benefit in youth with T2D, it remains perplexing as to why weight loss has not been demonstrated in clinical trials.

In the SURPASS trials of the GLP-1/gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP) receptor co-agonist tirzepatide, there was robust A1c lowering and weight loss among individuals with T2D. A meta-analysis published by Karagiannis and colleagues of seven tirzepatide trials has shown dose-dependent superiority for A1c and weight compared withplacebo, GLP-1R agonists, and basal insulin. Gastrointestinal side effects were similar to what we have come to expect with GLP-1R agonist–based therapies. Tirzepatide, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of T2D, is a welcome addition to the pharmacotherapy toolkit.

In the SURPASS-2 study, all doses of tirzepatide were superior to 1 mg semaglutide for both A1c and body weight reduction. Following the recent approval of 2 mg semaglutide by the FDA for the management of T2D, Vadher and colleagues explored how tirzepatide compares with 2 mg semaglutide via an indirect treatment comparison. Using data from the SUSTAIN-FORTE and SURPASS-2 trials, these authors found that A1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for 10 and 15 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide and similar for 5 mg tirzepatide vs 2 mg semaglutide. In the absence of a head-to-head trial, this analysis suggests greater efficacy with tirzepatide compared with high-dose semaglutide in T2D.

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides information about glycemia that is not available with A1c and capillary glucose monitoring. The coefficient of variation (CV) calculated from CGM is a good measure of glycemic variability, with a goal of ≤36%. There are inconsistent data for the association of CV with microvascular or macrovascular complications and very little study of the relationship between CV and long-term mortality. Mo and colleagues investigated the association between short-term glycemic variability measured by CV and all-cause mortality in a prospective study of 1839 individuals with T2D and a well-controlled glucose profile monitored by CGM. After about 7 years of follow-up, a greater baseline CV was associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, with a greater than twofold risk fo rmortality with a baseline CV of >35% compared witha baseline CV of ≤20%. This study suggests that clinicians should pay attention when CV is high, even with otherwise good glycemic control. With the expanding use of CGM, long-term intervention studies are needed to determine the role of glycemic variability(CV) in the development of complications and hard outcomes.

Addicted to cookies? Can’t stand broccoli? You may be able to blame Mom and Dad.

That’s because our taste preferences are influenced by our genes. And this may play an important role in determining our food choices and, in turn, our health, according to early study findings presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

“Our genetic predispositions to perceive certain tastes might be one of many reasons why some of us struggle to make healthy food choices,” says the study’s lead researcher, Julie Gervis, a doctoral degree candidate at the Tufts Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging.

As the field of personalized nutrition – a branch of science that uses technology to help people figure out what to eat for good health – advances, the findings could bring us closer to more effective personalized nutrition advice, better diets, and less risk for things like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
 

What’s your ‘polygenic taste score’?

We know genes influence our taste, but little is known about how taste-related genes impact diet quality and health. To investigate this, the researchers used data from “genome-wide association studies,” which scientists use to find gene variations associated with a trait, to create something called a polygenic taste score.

Your polygenic taste score shows how your genes impact your unique perception of taste – be it bitter, salty, sweet, sour, or savory (umami). If you have a high score for, say, sweet, that means you may be more sensitive to sweetness than someone with a moderate or low sweet score.

In the study sample of more than 6,000 adults, those with a high “bitter” score tended to eat fewer whole grains (two fewer servings a week), while those scoring high for savory ate fewer vegetables, especially orange and red types like carrots and bell peppers. That matters because whole grains have been shown to reduce heart disease risk, while a higher veggie intake is linked to lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

Meanwhile, genes related to sweet seemed key for health related to your heart and metabolism, as a higher sweet score was linked with lower triglycerides, a type of fat found in the blood.
 

From lab to shopping list

While we have a long way to go before dietitians and consumers can use polygenic taste scores, the tool could one day help us use – or minimize – the influence our genes has on our food choices, Ms. Gervis says. That may help us improve personalized nutrition advice aimed at reducing disease risk.

But first, other research needs to repeat the findings, Ms. Gervis says. And more large-scale, genome-wide studies on taste perception should be done.

“I hope these preliminary data convey the potential benefit of incorporating taste-related genes, and taste perception, into personalized nutrition,” she says. “After all, while we don’t always choose what foods are good for us, we do always choose what foods taste good to us.”

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

Addicted to cookies? Can’t stand broccoli? You may be able to blame Mom and Dad.

That’s because our taste preferences are influenced by our genes. And this may play an important role in determining our food choices and, in turn, our health, according to early study findings presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

“Our genetic predispositions to perceive certain tastes might be one of many reasons why some of us struggle to make healthy food choices,” says the study’s lead researcher, Julie Gervis, a doctoral degree candidate at the Tufts Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging.

As the field of personalized nutrition – a branch of science that uses technology to help people figure out what to eat for good health – advances, the findings could bring us closer to more effective personalized nutrition advice, better diets, and less risk for things like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
 

What’s your ‘polygenic taste score’?

We know genes influence our taste, but little is known about how taste-related genes impact diet quality and health. To investigate this, the researchers used data from “genome-wide association studies,” which scientists use to find gene variations associated with a trait, to create something called a polygenic taste score.

Your polygenic taste score shows how your genes impact your unique perception of taste – be it bitter, salty, sweet, sour, or savory (umami). If you have a high score for, say, sweet, that means you may be more sensitive to sweetness than someone with a moderate or low sweet score.

In the study sample of more than 6,000 adults, those with a high “bitter” score tended to eat fewer whole grains (two fewer servings a week), while those scoring high for savory ate fewer vegetables, especially orange and red types like carrots and bell peppers. That matters because whole grains have been shown to reduce heart disease risk, while a higher veggie intake is linked to lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

Meanwhile, genes related to sweet seemed key for health related to your heart and metabolism, as a higher sweet score was linked with lower triglycerides, a type of fat found in the blood.
 

From lab to shopping list

While we have a long way to go before dietitians and consumers can use polygenic taste scores, the tool could one day help us use – or minimize – the influence our genes has on our food choices, Ms. Gervis says. That may help us improve personalized nutrition advice aimed at reducing disease risk.

But first, other research needs to repeat the findings, Ms. Gervis says. And more large-scale, genome-wide studies on taste perception should be done.

“I hope these preliminary data convey the potential benefit of incorporating taste-related genes, and taste perception, into personalized nutrition,” she says. “After all, while we don’t always choose what foods are good for us, we do always choose what foods taste good to us.”

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

Addicted to cookies? Can’t stand broccoli? You may be able to blame Mom and Dad.

That’s because our taste preferences are influenced by our genes. And this may play an important role in determining our food choices and, in turn, our health, according to early study findings presented at this year’s annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition.

“Our genetic predispositions to perceive certain tastes might be one of many reasons why some of us struggle to make healthy food choices,” says the study’s lead researcher, Julie Gervis, a doctoral degree candidate at the Tufts Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging.

As the field of personalized nutrition – a branch of science that uses technology to help people figure out what to eat for good health – advances, the findings could bring us closer to more effective personalized nutrition advice, better diets, and less risk for things like obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.
 

What’s your ‘polygenic taste score’?

We know genes influence our taste, but little is known about how taste-related genes impact diet quality and health. To investigate this, the researchers used data from “genome-wide association studies,” which scientists use to find gene variations associated with a trait, to create something called a polygenic taste score.

Your polygenic taste score shows how your genes impact your unique perception of taste – be it bitter, salty, sweet, sour, or savory (umami). If you have a high score for, say, sweet, that means you may be more sensitive to sweetness than someone with a moderate or low sweet score.

In the study sample of more than 6,000 adults, those with a high “bitter” score tended to eat fewer whole grains (two fewer servings a week), while those scoring high for savory ate fewer vegetables, especially orange and red types like carrots and bell peppers. That matters because whole grains have been shown to reduce heart disease risk, while a higher veggie intake is linked to lower risk of type 2 diabetes.

Meanwhile, genes related to sweet seemed key for health related to your heart and metabolism, as a higher sweet score was linked with lower triglycerides, a type of fat found in the blood.
 

From lab to shopping list

While we have a long way to go before dietitians and consumers can use polygenic taste scores, the tool could one day help us use – or minimize – the influence our genes has on our food choices, Ms. Gervis says. That may help us improve personalized nutrition advice aimed at reducing disease risk.

But first, other research needs to repeat the findings, Ms. Gervis says. And more large-scale, genome-wide studies on taste perception should be done.

“I hope these preliminary data convey the potential benefit of incorporating taste-related genes, and taste perception, into personalized nutrition,” she says. “After all, while we don’t always choose what foods are good for us, we do always choose what foods taste good to us.”

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

A large Danish study has found that cancer increases the risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, especially certain types of cancer, most notably pancreatic malignancies.

“Our study demonstrates that there is an elevated risk of developing diabetes if a person is affected by lung, pancreatic, breast, brain, urinary tract, or uterine cancers,” said Lykke Sylow, PhD, associate professor in the Molecular Metabolism in Cancer and Ageing Group at the University of Copenhagen, in a statement.

“It is great to see such a large, well-designed study confirm the findings of previous smaller studies and observations,” said Elias S. Siraj, MD, the David L. Bernd Distinguished Chair for EVMS-Sentara Cardiovascular Diabetes Program at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, when asked for comment by this news organization. Dr. Siraj also noted that “in clinical care we do observe that many patients develop diabetes after being diagnosed with cancer although one needs a well-designed study to confirm that observation.”
 

Diabetes risk highest with pancreatic cancer

Type 2 diabetes at the time of cancer diagnosis is known to increase cancer-specific and all-cause mortality, but not much is known about whether cancer is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes, the researchers state in their study, published in Diabetes Care.

Dr. Sylow and colleagues from the Steno Diabetes Center Copenhagen, Rigshospitalet, analyzed a database consisting of 112 million blood samples from 1.3 million Danes from 2000 to 2015. They looked at cancer cases with an incidence of more than 1,000 and excluded individuals with diabetes prior to cancer diagnosis. 

They found an increased risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes for all cancers (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.14). For pancreatic cancer, the hazard ratio rose to 5.0 (95% CI, 3.62-6.90), for brain and nervous system cancers the hazard ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.22-1.95), and for uterine cancer the hazard ratio was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.10-1.84).

The link with pancreatic cancer was not surprising, said Dr. Sylow.

Dr. Siraj agreed, noting that a few studies have shown a strong association. “It has also been observed for years that many patients with pancreatic cancer may present with new-onset diabetes,” he said. “The mechanism is not clearly understood but could include a direct damage of the beta cells by the pancreatic cancer or could be due to a paraneoplastic secretion of special factors by the cancer that can affect beta-cell function or insulin resistance,” said Dr. Siraj, who is also professor and chief of endocrinology and director of the Strelitz Diabetes Center at Eastern Virginia Medical School.

The higher diabetes risk associated with brain and nervous system cancers has not been previously described and is “an intriguing finding,” he said.

In their statement, the Danish investigators said there is nothing in their research to suggest why some cancers are associated with a higher risk of new-onset type 2 diabetes, but they offered some theories, including that chemotherapeutics and perhaps the cancer, itself, may contribute.

“We know that cancer cells are able to secrete substances that can affect organs and possibility contribute to an increased incidence of diabetes,” said Dr. Sylow in the statement.
 

Increased mortality risk in those with cancer and type 2 diabetes

Dr. Sylow and colleagues also analyzed mortality in a subset of 28,308 patients with cancer who were still alive 2 years after diagnosis. They documented a 21% higher rate of all-cause mortality in these patients compared with those who did not have new-onset type 2 diabetes.

“We do not know enough about the patients who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, but we think our findings illustrate a potential new area of intervention in the cancer clinic,” Dr. Sylow said. However, the findings still require replication before drawing any definite conclusions, she added.

Christoffer Johansen, MD, PhD, DMSc, of Rigshospitalet, said in the statement that it might be prudent to screen patients with lung, breast, brain, uterine, and urinary tract cancers for diabetes. “Early intervention could have an impact on certain cancer patients,” said Dr. Johansen.

Dr. Siraj said he would urge oncologists to routinely monitor blood glucose levels during cancer treatment and as part of long-term surveillance, and to consider the potential risk of new-onset diabetes when choosing a cancer therapy. If diabetes is diagnosed, clinicians should be sure that it’s managed by a primary care physician or endocrinologist, “as proper treatment may contribute to better outcomes of the cancer,” said Dr. Siraj.

Endocrinologists should consider the possibility of pancreatic cancer if someone with few risk factors for type 2 diabetes has a new-onset diagnosis, he said. And they should aim for good glycemic control in those with new-onset type 2 diabetes, as it may lead to better cancer outcomes, he said.

Dr. Sylow has reported grant support from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and Independent Research Fund Denmark. Dr. Johansen has reported serving as an educator for Janssen and Pfizer. Coauthors have received grant support from the Danish Cancer Society and served as consultants, on advisory boards, or as educators for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, GSK, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi.

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

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, requests for vasectomies began spiking.

Urologists told The Washington Post that more men are seeking the procedure to prevent pregnancies and avoid abortion-related concerns.

“It was very, very noticeable [June 24], and then the number that came in over the weekend was huge, and the number that is still coming in far exceeds what we have experienced in the past,” Doug Stein, MD, a Florida urologist known as the “Vasectomy King” for his advocacy of the procedure, told the newspaper.

Before June 24, Dr. Stein received four or five vasectomy requests per day. But since then, that number has increased to 12 to 18 requests per day.

“Many of the guys are saying that they have been thinking about a vasectomy for a while, and the Roe v. Wade decision was just that final factor that tipped them over the edge and made them submit the online registration,” he said.

Urologists in California, Iowa, and New York also told the Post that they’ve seen a massive increase in the number of vasectomy consultations, as well as an increase in website traffic on their pages that offer information about vasectomies.

About 2 decades ago, Americans said the main reason they relied on a vasectomy as a form of birth control was that they or their partners had all the children they wanted. In the past decade, other reasons became more common, such as medical issues and problems with other types of birth control, the newspaper reported.

In anticipation of Roe v. Wade being overturned and anti-abortion legislation taking effect in states, advocates for vasectomies have encouraged people to get the procedure.

Dr. Stein said his practice is now booked through the end of August with vasectomy appointments, so he’s opening more days in his schedule to accommodate patients who submitted recent requests. He and his associate, John Curington, MD, said men under age 30 without children are requesting the procedure in greater numbers than before, with some citing the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, which said the Supreme Court should reconsider other landmark cases that protect rights under the 14th Amendment, such as access to contraceptives.

“I’d say at least 60 or 70% are mentioning the Supreme Court decision,” Dr. Curington said, according to the Post. “And a few of them have such sophistication as young men that they actually are thinking about Justice Thomas and his opinion that contraception may fall next. And that’s shocking. That’s something that doesn’t enter into our conversations ever, until this week.”

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

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, requests for vasectomies began spiking.

Urologists told The Washington Post that more men are seeking the procedure to prevent pregnancies and avoid abortion-related concerns.

“It was very, very noticeable [June 24], and then the number that came in over the weekend was huge, and the number that is still coming in far exceeds what we have experienced in the past,” Doug Stein, MD, a Florida urologist known as the “Vasectomy King” for his advocacy of the procedure, told the newspaper.

Before June 24, Dr. Stein received four or five vasectomy requests per day. But since then, that number has increased to 12 to 18 requests per day.

“Many of the guys are saying that they have been thinking about a vasectomy for a while, and the Roe v. Wade decision was just that final factor that tipped them over the edge and made them submit the online registration,” he said.

Urologists in California, Iowa, and New York also told the Post that they’ve seen a massive increase in the number of vasectomy consultations, as well as an increase in website traffic on their pages that offer information about vasectomies.

About 2 decades ago, Americans said the main reason they relied on a vasectomy as a form of birth control was that they or their partners had all the children they wanted. In the past decade, other reasons became more common, such as medical issues and problems with other types of birth control, the newspaper reported.

In anticipation of Roe v. Wade being overturned and anti-abortion legislation taking effect in states, advocates for vasectomies have encouraged people to get the procedure.

Dr. Stein said his practice is now booked through the end of August with vasectomy appointments, so he’s opening more days in his schedule to accommodate patients who submitted recent requests. He and his associate, John Curington, MD, said men under age 30 without children are requesting the procedure in greater numbers than before, with some citing the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, which said the Supreme Court should reconsider other landmark cases that protect rights under the 14th Amendment, such as access to contraceptives.

“I’d say at least 60 or 70% are mentioning the Supreme Court decision,” Dr. Curington said, according to the Post. “And a few of them have such sophistication as young men that they actually are thinking about Justice Thomas and his opinion that contraception may fall next. And that’s shocking. That’s something that doesn’t enter into our conversations ever, until this week.”

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

After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last week, requests for vasectomies began spiking.

Urologists told The Washington Post that more men are seeking the procedure to prevent pregnancies and avoid abortion-related concerns.

“It was very, very noticeable [June 24], and then the number that came in over the weekend was huge, and the number that is still coming in far exceeds what we have experienced in the past,” Doug Stein, MD, a Florida urologist known as the “Vasectomy King” for his advocacy of the procedure, told the newspaper.

Before June 24, Dr. Stein received four or five vasectomy requests per day. But since then, that number has increased to 12 to 18 requests per day.

“Many of the guys are saying that they have been thinking about a vasectomy for a while, and the Roe v. Wade decision was just that final factor that tipped them over the edge and made them submit the online registration,” he said.

Urologists in California, Iowa, and New York also told the Post that they’ve seen a massive increase in the number of vasectomy consultations, as well as an increase in website traffic on their pages that offer information about vasectomies.

About 2 decades ago, Americans said the main reason they relied on a vasectomy as a form of birth control was that they or their partners had all the children they wanted. In the past decade, other reasons became more common, such as medical issues and problems with other types of birth control, the newspaper reported.

In anticipation of Roe v. Wade being overturned and anti-abortion legislation taking effect in states, advocates for vasectomies have encouraged people to get the procedure.

Dr. Stein said his practice is now booked through the end of August with vasectomy appointments, so he’s opening more days in his schedule to accommodate patients who submitted recent requests. He and his associate, John Curington, MD, said men under age 30 without children are requesting the procedure in greater numbers than before, with some citing the concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, which said the Supreme Court should reconsider other landmark cases that protect rights under the 14th Amendment, such as access to contraceptives.

“I’d say at least 60 or 70% are mentioning the Supreme Court decision,” Dr. Curington said, according to the Post. “And a few of them have such sophistication as young men that they actually are thinking about Justice Thomas and his opinion that contraception may fall next. And that’s shocking. That’s something that doesn’t enter into our conversations ever, until this week.”

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

Adults younger than 55 years were least likely to get screened for colorectal cancer over the past 2 decades, particularly if they were Hispanic or Asian or had a low income, lower education level, or no health insurance, according to a new study published online in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

The findings have raised concerns that disparities in screening rates will be even greater in adults aged 45-49 years, prompting the need for increased awareness and outreach to ensure that underserved groups have access to screenings.

“Differences in prevalence of screening by race and ethnicity, educational attainment, household income, and health insurance were most pronounced for those ages 50-54 years, whereas older adults experienced larger increases in prevalence across these groups,” wrote Po-Hong Liu, MD, MPH, a clinical investigator at Harvard University, Boston, and his colleagues. “The persistent and worsening disparities we observed in adults 50-54 years may extend to those ages 45-49 as they become eligible for screening.”

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force shifted their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening in May 2021 to 5 years earlier, advising people to start screenings at 45 instead of 50, which aligns with the recommendations the American Cancer Society made 3 years earlier.

Both organizations made the change because of increasing rates of colorectal cancer in adults under age 50 and research indicating that beginning screenings at age 45 results in fewer cases, fewer deaths, and more life years gained.

“Across all age groups, colorectal cancer screening participation remains below national goals, and the benefits of screening are not equally realized across populations,” senior author Caitlin Murphy, PhD, MPH, associate professor, UTHealth School of Public Health, Houston, said in a prepared statement. “Extra care must be taken to ensure that expanding screening to younger ages does not negatively impact efforts to eliminate disparities in colorectal screening and outcomes nor jeopardize efforts to increase screening initiation among older adults who remain unscreened.”
 

Data analyzed from 8 years over 2 decades

The researchers analyzed data from the CDC’s cross-sectional National Health Interview Survey during 8 years over the past 2 decades: 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2018.

The number of participants each year ranged from a low of 21,781 in 2008 to a high of 34,557 in 2013. After excluding participants with a history of colorectal cancer or missing information on screenings, the total population sample included 80,220 participants 50-75 years old.

The researchers considered a person as having been screened if they received at least one recommended screening test within the year covered by the survey, regardless of why they underwent the test.

Recommended tests included sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, and stool-based tests for all survey years. In addition, the surveys for 2010, 2015, and 2018 included CT colonography, and the 2018 survey included FIT-DNA.
 

Screening across population groups

Colorectal cancer screening rates have doubled in the past 2 decades, from 36.7% in 2000 to 66.1% in 2018.

Rates are considerably lower, however, for several key groups, including the youngest group. Less than half (47.6%) of those aged 50-54 years received screenings in 2018, though this was still a nearly 20-point improvement over the 28.2% in this age group who were screened in 2000.

Separate from age, several other groups continue to have low screening rates in general, including Hispanics (56.5%, up from 25.9% in 2000), Asians (57.1%, up from 22.6% in 2000), those who have not received a high school degree (53.6%, up from 26.8% in 2000), and those from low income families (56.6%, up from 30.2% in 2000).

The group with the greatest need for more outreach and screenings are people without insurance, only 39.7% of whom were screened in 2018, a modest increase from 30.2% in 2000.

The biggest increase in screenings over time occurred in those aged 70-75 years, from 46.4% in 2000 to 78% in 2018 overall.

Racial/ethnic, economic, education, and insurance-based disparities were particularly evident the younger people were, including in terms of progress made over time.

For example, screenings of non-Hispanic White people aged 50-54 years improved 21 points (30.3% to 51%) between 2000 and 2018, compared with 19 points in Hispanics (16.7% to 35.5%) and 15 points in Asians (17.3% to 32.3%). Fortunately, Black Americans made even greater strides than White Americans with a 27-point increase during that time (23.4% to 50%). 

Similarly, income correlated with expansion in screening rates for 50- to 54-year-olds: Those earning at least 400% over the federal poverty line improved 20 points (from 33.5% to 53.8%), compared with a 16-point improvement in those earning less than 200% above the poverty line (from 19.3% to 35%).

Those with private insurance likewise improved 21 points (from 30.7% to 51.7%), while those in this age group without insurance declined, with just 21.2% getting screened in 2018, compared with 28.2% in 2000. Those on public insurance saw a 15-point improvement, from 27.8% in 2000 to 43.1% in 2018.

“The individual and societal burden of colorectal cancer is especially great among younger adults,” the authors wrote.

The reasons for the much lower prevalence of screening in those under 55, the authors suggested, is likely due to less concern about colorectal cancer, less access to medical care (including being underinsured or uninsured), and the barriers created by competing priorities, such as work schedules, family responsibilities, and caregiving. The latter may be particularly true in underserved populations, the authors noted.

“Screening programs must consider the barriers unique to younger adults, ensuring the benefits of screening are equally realized by all population groups,” the authors concluded.

The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. One author reported grants from Epigenomics and Freenome and personal fees from Guardant Health. Another author reported personal fees from Freenome, and a third author reported personal fees from Exact Sciences. No other authors had industry disclosures.

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

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) typically begins in early adulthood and persists throughout life. Many individuals with GAD report they have felt anxious their entire lives. The essential symptom of GAD is excessive anxiety and worry about numerous events or activities. The intensity, duration, and/or frequency of the anxiety and worry are out of proportion to the actual likelihood or impact of the anticipated event. The individual finds it difficult to control their worry and prevent worrisome thoughts from interfering with attention to everyday tasks.¹

Treatment of GAD typically consists of psychotherapy and pharma­cotherapy. Several studies have suggested that concurrent psychotherapy amplifies the benefits of pharmacotherapy.^2-5 Additionally, combined treatment may differentially target specific symptoms (eg, cognitive vs somatic). The addition of psychotherapy may also increase treatment adherence and decrease potential adverse effects of pharmacotherapy.

Multiple classes of medications are available for treating GAD. Current guidelines and evidence suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be considered a first-line intervention, followed by serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.^6-11 While the evidence supporting pharmacotherapy for GAD continues to expand, many patients with GAD do not respond to first-line treatment. There is limited data regarding second-line or augmentation strategies for treating these patients. Because current treatment options for GAD are commonly associated with suboptimal treatment outcomes, researchers are investigating the use of nonpharma­cologic biological interventions, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which was first cleared by the FDA to treat major depressive disorder (MDD) in 2008.

In Part 1 of this 2-part article, we review 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological interventions for GAD that have been published within the last 5 years (Table^12-19).

1. Strawn JR, Mills JA, Schroeder H, et al. Escitalopram in adolescents with generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020;81(5):20m13396. doi:10.4088/JCP.20m13396

GAD is highly prevalent in adolescents, and SSRIs are often used as first-line agents. However, treatment response is often variable, and clinicians often use trial-and-error to identify an appropriate medication and dose that will result in meaningful improvement. Understanding an individual’s pharmacokinetic response may help predict response and guide therapy. Adult studies have shown cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 metabolizes several SSRIs, including escitalopram, with faster CYP2C19 metabolism leading to decreased plasma concentrations. Strawn et al¹² studied the effects of escitalopram in adolescents with GAD as well as the effects of CYP2C19 metabolism.

Study design

• A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated 51 adolescents (age 12 to 17) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD. They had a baseline Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS) score ≥15 and a Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) Scale score ≥4.
• Participants were randomized to escitalo­pram (n = 26; scheduled titration to 15 mg/d, then flexible to 20 mg/d), or placebo (n = 25) and monitored for 8 weeks.
• Patients with panic disorder, agoraphobia, or social anxiety disorder were also enrolled, but GAD was the primary diagnosis.
• The primary outcome was change in PARS score and change from baseline in CGI-S and Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale scores, with assessments completed at Week 1, Week 2, Week 4, Week 6, and Week 8, or at early termination.
• Genomic DNA was obtained via buccal swab to assess 9 alleles of CYP2C19. Plasma concentrations of escitalopram and its major metabolite, desmethylescitalopram, were collected to assess plasma escitalopram and desmethylescitalopram area under the curve for 24 hours (AUC_0-24) and maximum plasma concentration (C_MAX).

Outcomes

• Escitalopram was superior to placebo, evident by statistically significantly greater changes in PARS and CGI scores.
• Greater improvement over time on PARS was correlated with intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizers, and greater response as measured by CGI-I was associated with having at least 1 long allele of SLC6A4 and being an intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizer.
• While plasma escitalopram exposure (AUC_0-24) significantly decreased and desmethylcitalopram-to-escitalopram ratios increased with faster CYP2C19 metabolism at 15 mg/d, escitalopram exposure at the 15 mg/d dose and escitalopram-to-desmethyl­citalopram ratios did not differ at Week 8 between responders and nonresponders. Patients with activation symptoms had higher C_MAX and AUC_0-24.
• Changes in vital signs, corrected QT interval, and adverse events were similar in both groups.

Conclusions/limitations

• For adolescents with GAD, escitalopram showed a benefit compared to placebo.
• Allelic differences in CYP2C19 metabolism may lead to variations in pharmacokinetics, and understanding a patient’s CYP2C19 phenotype may help guide dosing escitalopram and predicting adverse effects.
• This study enrolled a small, predominantly female, White, treatment-naïve sample, which may limit conclusions on allelic differences. Additionally, the sample included adolescents with severe anxiety and comorbid anxiety conditions, which may limit generalizability.

Continue to: #2

Vortioxetine, an FDA-approved antidepressant, has been shown to improve anxiety symptoms in patients with GAD. Additionally, vortioxetine has shown positive effects in patients with MDD, with greater improvement seen in the working and professional population. Due to the overlap between MDD and GAD, Christensen et al¹³ assessed the effectiveness of vortioxetine on anxiety symptoms in individuals who were working.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a post-hoc analysis of a previously completed randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 301 patients as well as a previously completed randomized, placebo-controlled relapse prevention study of 687 patients. Patients in both groups met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD.
• Inclusion criteria included a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) score ≥20 with HAM-A scores ≥2 on items 1 (anxious mood), and 2 (tension), and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≤16 at screening and baseline.
• Researchers compared participants who were working or pursuing an education vs the full study sample.

Outcomes

• Vortioxetine was significantly associated with benefits in anxiety symptoms, functioning, and quality of life in both working participants and the total population, with the greatest effects seen in professional (ie, managers, administrators) and associate professional (ie, technical, nursing, clerical workers, or secretarial) positions. Working participants who received placebo were more likely to relapse compared to those receiving vortioxetine.
• There did not appear to be a statistically significant benefit or increase in relapse among the skilled labor group (ie, building, electrical/factory worker, or services/sales) while receiving vortioxetine.

Conclusions/limitations

• Vortioxetine may have a more pronounced effect in patients who are working or pursuing an education vs the full GAD population, which suggests that targeting this medication at particular patient demographics may be beneficial.
• Working patients with GAD may also differ from nonworking patients by factors other than work, such as education, support system, motivation, and other personal factors.
• This study was a post-hoc analysis, which limits definitive conclusions but may help guide future studies.

Continue to: #3

3. Xie ZJ, Han N, Law S, et al. The efficacy of group cognitive-behavioural therapy plus duloxetine for generalised anxiety disorder versus duloxetine alone. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2019;31(6):316-324. doi:10.1017/neu.2019.32

Treatment of GAD should include nonmedication options such as psychotherapy to help enhance efficacy. Few studies have evaluated whether combined cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) plus medication has more benefit than medication monotherapy, specifically in patients with GAD. In this randomized trial, Xie et al¹⁴ examined how a study population undergoing CBT and receiving duloxetine differed from those receiving duloxetine monotherapy for GAD.

Study design

• In this randomized, open-label trial, adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and had a HAM-A score >14 were randomized to group CBT plus duloxetine (n = 89) or duloxetine only (n = 81), with follow-up at Week 4, Week 8, and Month 3.
• The primary outcomes included response and remission rates based on HAM-A score. Secondary outcomes included HAM-A total score reductions, psychic anxiety (HAMA-PA) and somatic anxiety (HAMA-SA) subscale score reductions, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score reductions, and reductions in overall illness severity as measured by CGI-S, the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, and the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey.

Outcomes

• At Week 4, combined therapy was superior to duloxetine alone as evident by the primary and most secondary outcomes, with continued benefits but smaller effect size at Week 8.
• At Month 3, combined therapy was significantly better only in HAM-A total score and HAMA-PA score reductions.

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients who received group CBT plus duloxetine treatment experienced faster improvement of GAD symptoms compared to patients who received duloxetine monotherapy, though the difference reduced over time.
• The most benefit appeared to be for psychic anxiety symptoms, which suggests that group CBT can help change cognition style.
• This study had a short follow-up period, high dropout rates, and recruited patients from only 1 institution.

4. Huang Z, Li Y, Bianchi MT, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right parietal cortex for comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and insomnia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(5):1103-1109. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2018.05.016

Insomnia and anxiety often present together. rTMS has demonstrated efficacy in various psychiatric illnesses, but there is limited research regarding its effectiveness in GAD. Additionally, little is known regarding the benefits of rTMS for patients with comorbid insomnia and GAD. Huang et al¹⁵ examined the therapeutic effects of rTMS in patients with comorbid insomnia and GAD.

Continue to: Study design

• Adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and insomnia were randomized to receive 10 days of low-intensity rTMS on the right parietal lobe (n = 18) or a sham procedure (n = 18). Inclusion criteria also included a score ≥14 on HAM-A, ≥7 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and <20 on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).
• rTMS settings included a frequency of 1 Hz, 90% intensity of the resting motor threshold, 3 trains of 500 pulses, and an intertrain interval of 10 minutes.
• Study measurements included HAM-A, PSQI, and HAM-D at baseline, posttreatment at Day 10, Week 2 follow-up, and Month 1 follow-up.

Outcomes

• Significantly more patients in the rTMS group had a meaningful response as measured by change in HAM-A score at posttreatment and both follow-up sessions.
• The rTMS group had significant remission compared to the sham group at posttreatment and Week 2 follow-up, but showed no significant difference at Month 1.
• There were significant improvements in insomnia symptoms in the rTMS group at the posttreatment and follow-up time points.

Conclusions/limitations

• Low-frequency rTMS over the right parietal cortex is an effective treatment option for patients with comorbid GAD and insomnia.
• This study had a small sample size consisting of participants from only 1 institution.

5. Amsterdam JD, Li QS, Xie SX, et al. Putative antidepressant effect of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) oral extract in subjects with comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and depression. J Altern Complement Med. 2020;26(9):813-819. doi:10.1089/acm.2019.0252

GAD often presents with comorbid depression. While antidepressants are the standard approach to treatment of both conditions, patients may seek alternative therapies. In previous studies,²⁰Matricaria chamomilla L. (chamomile) has been shown to reduce GAD symptoms, and post-hoc analyses²¹ have shown its benefits in treating depression. Amsterdam et al¹⁶ assessed the effects of chamomile on patients with GAD with and without comorbid depression.

Study design

• As part of an RCT, 179 adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD underwent an 8-week open-label phase of chamomile extract therapy (1,500 mg/d). Participants who responded were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-control trial. Amsterdam et al¹⁶ specifically analyzed the 8-week open label portion of the study.
• Participants were divided into 2 groups: GAD without comorbid depression (n = 100), and GAD with comorbid depression (n = 79).
• Outcome measures included the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7), HAM-A, Beck Anxiety Inventory, 17-item HAM-D, 6-item HAM-D, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Continue to: Outcomes

• Patients with comorbid depression experienced a greater, statistically significant reduction in HAM-D core symptom scores (depressed mood, guilt, suicide ideation, work and interest, retardation, and somatic symptoms general).
• The comorbid depression group experienced a trend (but not significant) reduction in total HAM-D and BDI scores.

Conclusions/limitations

• Chamomile extract may help reduce depressive symptoms in patients with GAD who also have depression.
• This study was not powered to detect significant differences in depression outcome ratings between groups, was exploratory, and was not a controlled trial.

6. Dilkov D, Hawken ER, Kaludiev E, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex in the treatment of generalized anxiety dis­order: a randomized, double-blind sham controlled clinical trial. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2017;78:61-65. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.05.018

Nonpharmacologic modalities, including rTMS, may be effective alternatives for treating GAD. Dilkov et al¹⁷ examined whether excitatory rTMS is an effective treatment option for GAD.

Study design

• In this double-blind, sham-controlled trial, adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD were randomized to excitatory rTMS of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex therapy (n = 15) or a sham procedure (n = 25).
• rTMS settings included a frequency of 20 Hz, 110% intensity of resting motor threshold, 20 trains, 9 seconds/train, and 51-second intertrain intervals.
• Outcomes were measured by HAM-A, CGI, and 21-item HAM-D.

Outcomes

• At the conclusion of 25 treatments, the rTMS group experienced a statistically significant reduction in GAD symptoms as measured by HAM-A.
• Improvements were also noted in the CGI and HAM-D scores in the rTMS group compared to the sham group.
• The benefits continued at the Week 4 follow-up visit.

Conclusions/limitations

• Participants in the rTMS group experienced a significant decrease in anxiety symptoms, which suggests that rTMS may be an effective treatment for GAD.
• The benefits appear sustainable even after the conclusion of the rTMS sessions.
• This study had a small sample size and excluded patients with comorbid psychiatric conditions.

Continue to: #7

Dysregulated stress response has been proposed as a mechanism for anxiety.^22,23 Patients with GAD have been reported to have alterations in cortisol levels, specifically lower morning cortisol levels and a less steep diurnal cortisol slope; however, it is not clear how treatment affects these levels. Keefe et al¹⁸ examined whether chamomile therapy in patients with GAD affects cortisol levels.

Study design

• In an 8-week, open-label study, 45 adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD received chamomile extract capsules 1,500 mg/d.
• Participants used at-home kits to collect their saliva so cortisol levels could be assessed at 8 am, 12 pm, 4 pm, and 8 pm.
• The GAD-7 was used to assess anxiety symptoms.

Outcomes

• Participants who experienced greater improvements in GAD symptoms had relative increases in morning cortisol levels compared to their baseline levels.
• Participants who experienced greater improvements in GAD symptoms had a greater decrease in cortisol levels throughout the day (ie, greater diurnal slope).

Conclusions/limitations

• Greater improvement in GAD symptoms after treatment with chamomile extract appeared to be correlated with increased morning cortisol levels and a steeper diurnal cortisol slope after awakening, which suggests that treatment of GAD may help improve dysregulated stress biology.
• This study had a small sample size and was not placebo-controlled.

Continue to: #8

Compared to the medications that are FDA-approved for GAD, agomelatine has a different mechanism of action, and has shown to be efficacious and tolerable in previous studies.^24-26 In this study, Stein et al¹⁹ compared agomelatine vs escitalopram for patients with severe GAD.

Study design

• In a 12-week, double-blind study, adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD were randomized to agomelatine 25 to 50 mg/d (n = 261) or escitalopram 10 to 20 mg/d (n = 262).
• Participants had to meet specific criteria for severe anxiety, including a HAM-A total score ≥25.
• The primary outcome measure was the change in HAM-A score from baseline to Week 12. Secondary outcome measures included the rate of response as determined by change in scores on the HAM-PA, HAM-SA, CGI, Toronto Hospital Alertness Test, Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale, and Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire.

Outcomes

• Participants in both the agomelatine and escitalopram groups reported similar, clinically significant mean reductions in HAM-A scores at Week 12.
• There were no significant differences in secondary measures between the 2 groups, and both groups experienced improvement in psychic and somatic symptoms, alertness, and sleep.
• Overall, the agomelatine group experienced fewer adverse events compared to the escitalopram group.

Conclusions/limitations

• Agomelatine may be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for severe GAD.
• This study excluded individuals with comorbid conditions.

Bottom Line

Recent research suggests that escitalopram; vortioxetine; agomelatine; duloxetine plus group cognitive-behavioral therapy; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; and chamomile extract can improve symptoms in patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

Related Resources

• Abell SR, El-Mallakh RS. Serotonin-mediated anxiety: how to recognize and treat it. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(11):37-40. doi:10.12788/cp.0168

Drug Brand Names

Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) typically begins in early adulthood and persists throughout life. Many individuals with GAD report they have felt anxious their entire lives. The essential symptom of GAD is excessive anxiety and worry about numerous events or activities. The intensity, duration, and/or frequency of the anxiety and worry are out of proportion to the actual likelihood or impact of the anticipated event. The individual finds it difficult to control their worry and prevent worrisome thoughts from interfering with attention to everyday tasks.¹

Treatment of GAD typically consists of psychotherapy and pharma­cotherapy. Several studies have suggested that concurrent psychotherapy amplifies the benefits of pharmacotherapy.^2-5 Additionally, combined treatment may differentially target specific symptoms (eg, cognitive vs somatic). The addition of psychotherapy may also increase treatment adherence and decrease potential adverse effects of pharmacotherapy.

Multiple classes of medications are available for treating GAD. Current guidelines and evidence suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be considered a first-line intervention, followed by serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.^6-11 While the evidence supporting pharmacotherapy for GAD continues to expand, many patients with GAD do not respond to first-line treatment. There is limited data regarding second-line or augmentation strategies for treating these patients. Because current treatment options for GAD are commonly associated with suboptimal treatment outcomes, researchers are investigating the use of nonpharma­cologic biological interventions, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which was first cleared by the FDA to treat major depressive disorder (MDD) in 2008.

In Part 1 of this 2-part article, we review 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological interventions for GAD that have been published within the last 5 years (Table^12-19).

1. Strawn JR, Mills JA, Schroeder H, et al. Escitalopram in adolescents with generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020;81(5):20m13396. doi:10.4088/JCP.20m13396

GAD is highly prevalent in adolescents, and SSRIs are often used as first-line agents. However, treatment response is often variable, and clinicians often use trial-and-error to identify an appropriate medication and dose that will result in meaningful improvement. Understanding an individual’s pharmacokinetic response may help predict response and guide therapy. Adult studies have shown cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 metabolizes several SSRIs, including escitalopram, with faster CYP2C19 metabolism leading to decreased plasma concentrations. Strawn et al¹² studied the effects of escitalopram in adolescents with GAD as well as the effects of CYP2C19 metabolism.

Study design

• A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated 51 adolescents (age 12 to 17) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD. They had a baseline Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS) score ≥15 and a Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) Scale score ≥4.
• Participants were randomized to escitalo­pram (n = 26; scheduled titration to 15 mg/d, then flexible to 20 mg/d), or placebo (n = 25) and monitored for 8 weeks.
• Patients with panic disorder, agoraphobia, or social anxiety disorder were also enrolled, but GAD was the primary diagnosis.
• The primary outcome was change in PARS score and change from baseline in CGI-S and Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale scores, with assessments completed at Week 1, Week 2, Week 4, Week 6, and Week 8, or at early termination.
• Genomic DNA was obtained via buccal swab to assess 9 alleles of CYP2C19. Plasma concentrations of escitalopram and its major metabolite, desmethylescitalopram, were collected to assess plasma escitalopram and desmethylescitalopram area under the curve for 24 hours (AUC_0-24) and maximum plasma concentration (C_MAX).

Outcomes

• Escitalopram was superior to placebo, evident by statistically significantly greater changes in PARS and CGI scores.
• Greater improvement over time on PARS was correlated with intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizers, and greater response as measured by CGI-I was associated with having at least 1 long allele of SLC6A4 and being an intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizer.
• While plasma escitalopram exposure (AUC_0-24) significantly decreased and desmethylcitalopram-to-escitalopram ratios increased with faster CYP2C19 metabolism at 15 mg/d, escitalopram exposure at the 15 mg/d dose and escitalopram-to-desmethyl­citalopram ratios did not differ at Week 8 between responders and nonresponders. Patients with activation symptoms had higher C_MAX and AUC_0-24.
• Changes in vital signs, corrected QT interval, and adverse events were similar in both groups.

Conclusions/limitations

• For adolescents with GAD, escitalopram showed a benefit compared to placebo.
• Allelic differences in CYP2C19 metabolism may lead to variations in pharmacokinetics, and understanding a patient’s CYP2C19 phenotype may help guide dosing escitalopram and predicting adverse effects.
• This study enrolled a small, predominantly female, White, treatment-naïve sample, which may limit conclusions on allelic differences. Additionally, the sample included adolescents with severe anxiety and comorbid anxiety conditions, which may limit generalizability.

Continue to: #2

Vortioxetine, an FDA-approved antidepressant, has been shown to improve anxiety symptoms in patients with GAD. Additionally, vortioxetine has shown positive effects in patients with MDD, with greater improvement seen in the working and professional population. Due to the overlap between MDD and GAD, Christensen et al¹³ assessed the effectiveness of vortioxetine on anxiety symptoms in individuals who were working.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a post-hoc analysis of a previously completed randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 301 patients as well as a previously completed randomized, placebo-controlled relapse prevention study of 687 patients. Patients in both groups met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD.
• Inclusion criteria included a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) score ≥20 with HAM-A scores ≥2 on items 1 (anxious mood), and 2 (tension), and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≤16 at screening and baseline.
• Researchers compared participants who were working or pursuing an education vs the full study sample.

Outcomes

• Vortioxetine was significantly associated with benefits in anxiety symptoms, functioning, and quality of life in both working participants and the total population, with the greatest effects seen in professional (ie, managers, administrators) and associate professional (ie, technical, nursing, clerical workers, or secretarial) positions. Working participants who received placebo were more likely to relapse compared to those receiving vortioxetine.
• There did not appear to be a statistically significant benefit or increase in relapse among the skilled labor group (ie, building, electrical/factory worker, or services/sales) while receiving vortioxetine.

Conclusions/limitations

• Vortioxetine may have a more pronounced effect in patients who are working or pursuing an education vs the full GAD population, which suggests that targeting this medication at particular patient demographics may be beneficial.
• Working patients with GAD may also differ from nonworking patients by factors other than work, such as education, support system, motivation, and other personal factors.
• This study was a post-hoc analysis, which limits definitive conclusions but may help guide future studies.

Continue to: #3

3. Xie ZJ, Han N, Law S, et al. The efficacy of group cognitive-behavioural therapy plus duloxetine for generalised anxiety disorder versus duloxetine alone. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2019;31(6):316-324. doi:10.1017/neu.2019.32

Treatment of GAD should include nonmedication options such as psychotherapy to help enhance efficacy. Few studies have evaluated whether combined cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) plus medication has more benefit than medication monotherapy, specifically in patients with GAD. In this randomized trial, Xie et al¹⁴ examined how a study population undergoing CBT and receiving duloxetine differed from those receiving duloxetine monotherapy for GAD.

Study design

• In this randomized, open-label trial, adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and had a HAM-A score >14 were randomized to group CBT plus duloxetine (n = 89) or duloxetine only (n = 81), with follow-up at Week 4, Week 8, and Month 3.
• The primary outcomes included response and remission rates based on HAM-A score. Secondary outcomes included HAM-A total score reductions, psychic anxiety (HAMA-PA) and somatic anxiety (HAMA-SA) subscale score reductions, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score reductions, and reductions in overall illness severity as measured by CGI-S, the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, and the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey.

Outcomes

• At Week 4, combined therapy was superior to duloxetine alone as evident by the primary and most secondary outcomes, with continued benefits but smaller effect size at Week 8.
• At Month 3, combined therapy was significantly better only in HAM-A total score and HAMA-PA score reductions.

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients who received group CBT plus duloxetine treatment experienced faster improvement of GAD symptoms compared to patients who received duloxetine monotherapy, though the difference reduced over time.
• The most benefit appeared to be for psychic anxiety symptoms, which suggests that group CBT can help change cognition style.
• This study had a short follow-up period, high dropout rates, and recruited patients from only 1 institution.

4. Huang Z, Li Y, Bianchi MT, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right parietal cortex for comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and insomnia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(5):1103-1109. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2018.05.016

Insomnia and anxiety often present together. rTMS has demonstrated efficacy in various psychiatric illnesses, but there is limited research regarding its effectiveness in GAD. Additionally, little is known regarding the benefits of rTMS for patients with comorbid insomnia and GAD. Huang et al¹⁵ examined the therapeutic effects of rTMS in patients with comorbid insomnia and GAD.

Continue to: Study design

• Adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and insomnia were randomized to receive 10 days of low-intensity rTMS on the right parietal lobe (n = 18) or a sham procedure (n = 18). Inclusion criteria also included a score ≥14 on HAM-A, ≥7 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and <20 on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).
• rTMS settings included a frequency of 1 Hz, 90% intensity of the resting motor threshold, 3 trains of 500 pulses, and an intertrain interval of 10 minutes.
• Study measurements included HAM-A, PSQI, and HAM-D at baseline, posttreatment at Day 10, Week 2 follow-up, and Month 1 follow-up.

Outcomes

• Significantly more patients in the rTMS group had a meaningful response as measured by change in HAM-A score at posttreatment and both follow-up sessions.
• The rTMS group had significant remission compared to the sham group at posttreatment and Week 2 follow-up, but showed no significant difference at Month 1.
• There were significant improvements in insomnia symptoms in the rTMS group at the posttreatment and follow-up time points.

Conclusions/limitations

• Low-frequency rTMS over the right parietal cortex is an effective treatment option for patients with comorbid GAD and insomnia.
• This study had a small sample size consisting of participants from only 1 institution.

5. Amsterdam JD, Li QS, Xie SX, et al. Putative antidepressant effect of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) oral extract in subjects with comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and depression. J Altern Complement Med. 2020;26(9):813-819. doi:10.1089/acm.2019.0252

GAD often presents with comorbid depression. While antidepressants are the standard approach to treatment of both conditions, patients may seek alternative therapies. In previous studies,²⁰Matricaria chamomilla L. (chamomile) has been shown to reduce GAD symptoms, and post-hoc analyses²¹ have shown its benefits in treating depression. Amsterdam et al¹⁶ assessed the effects of chamomile on patients with GAD with and without comorbid depression.

Study design

• As part of an RCT, 179 adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD underwent an 8-week open-label phase of chamomile extract therapy (1,500 mg/d). Participants who responded were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-control trial. Amsterdam et al¹⁶ specifically analyzed the 8-week open label portion of the study.
• Participants were divided into 2 groups: GAD without comorbid depression (n = 100), and GAD with comorbid depression (n = 79).
• Outcome measures included the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7), HAM-A, Beck Anxiety Inventory, 17-item HAM-D, 6-item HAM-D, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Continue to: Outcomes

• Patients with comorbid depression experienced a greater, statistically significant reduction in HAM-D core symptom scores (depressed mood, guilt, suicide ideation, work and interest, retardation, and somatic symptoms general).
• The comorbid depression group experienced a trend (but not significant) reduction in total HAM-D and BDI scores.

Conclusions/limitations

• Chamomile extract may help reduce depressive symptoms in patients with GAD who also have depression.
• This study was not powered to detect significant differences in depression outcome ratings between groups, was exploratory, and was not a controlled trial.

6. Dilkov D, Hawken ER, Kaludiev E, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex in the treatment of generalized anxiety dis­order: a randomized, double-blind sham controlled clinical trial. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2017;78:61-65. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.05.018

Nonpharmacologic modalities, including rTMS, may be effective alternatives for treating GAD. Dilkov et al¹⁷ examined whether excitatory rTMS is an effective treatment option for GAD.

Study design

• In this double-blind, sham-controlled trial, adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD were randomized to excitatory rTMS of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex therapy (n = 15) or a sham procedure (n = 25).
• rTMS settings included a frequency of 20 Hz, 110% intensity of resting motor threshold, 20 trains, 9 seconds/train, and 51-second intertrain intervals.
• Outcomes were measured by HAM-A, CGI, and 21-item HAM-D.

Outcomes

• At the conclusion of 25 treatments, the rTMS group experienced a statistically significant reduction in GAD symptoms as measured by HAM-A.
• Improvements were also noted in the CGI and HAM-D scores in the rTMS group compared to the sham group.
• The benefits continued at the Week 4 follow-up visit.

Conclusions/limitations

• Participants in the rTMS group experienced a significant decrease in anxiety symptoms, which suggests that rTMS may be an effective treatment for GAD.
• The benefits appear sustainable even after the conclusion of the rTMS sessions.
• This study had a small sample size and excluded patients with comorbid psychiatric conditions.

Continue to: #7

Dysregulated stress response has been proposed as a mechanism for anxiety.^22,23 Patients with GAD have been reported to have alterations in cortisol levels, specifically lower morning cortisol levels and a less steep diurnal cortisol slope; however, it is not clear how treatment affects these levels. Keefe et al¹⁸ examined whether chamomile therapy in patients with GAD affects cortisol levels.

Study design

• In an 8-week, open-label study, 45 adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD received chamomile extract capsules 1,500 mg/d.
• Participants used at-home kits to collect their saliva so cortisol levels could be assessed at 8 am, 12 pm, 4 pm, and 8 pm.
• The GAD-7 was used to assess anxiety symptoms.

Outcomes

• Participants who experienced greater improvements in GAD symptoms had relative increases in morning cortisol levels compared to their baseline levels.
• Participants who experienced greater improvements in GAD symptoms had a greater decrease in cortisol levels throughout the day (ie, greater diurnal slope).

Conclusions/limitations

• Greater improvement in GAD symptoms after treatment with chamomile extract appeared to be correlated with increased morning cortisol levels and a steeper diurnal cortisol slope after awakening, which suggests that treatment of GAD may help improve dysregulated stress biology.
• This study had a small sample size and was not placebo-controlled.

Continue to: #8

Compared to the medications that are FDA-approved for GAD, agomelatine has a different mechanism of action, and has shown to be efficacious and tolerable in previous studies.^24-26 In this study, Stein et al¹⁹ compared agomelatine vs escitalopram for patients with severe GAD.

Study design

• In a 12-week, double-blind study, adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD were randomized to agomelatine 25 to 50 mg/d (n = 261) or escitalopram 10 to 20 mg/d (n = 262).
• Participants had to meet specific criteria for severe anxiety, including a HAM-A total score ≥25.
• The primary outcome measure was the change in HAM-A score from baseline to Week 12. Secondary outcome measures included the rate of response as determined by change in scores on the HAM-PA, HAM-SA, CGI, Toronto Hospital Alertness Test, Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale, and Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire.

Outcomes

• Participants in both the agomelatine and escitalopram groups reported similar, clinically significant mean reductions in HAM-A scores at Week 12.
• There were no significant differences in secondary measures between the 2 groups, and both groups experienced improvement in psychic and somatic symptoms, alertness, and sleep.
• Overall, the agomelatine group experienced fewer adverse events compared to the escitalopram group.

Conclusions/limitations

• Agomelatine may be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for severe GAD.
• This study excluded individuals with comorbid conditions.

Bottom Line

Recent research suggests that escitalopram; vortioxetine; agomelatine; duloxetine plus group cognitive-behavioral therapy; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; and chamomile extract can improve symptoms in patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

Related Resources

• Abell SR, El-Mallakh RS. Serotonin-mediated anxiety: how to recognize and treat it. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(11):37-40. doi:10.12788/cp.0168

Drug Brand Names

Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) typically begins in early adulthood and persists throughout life. Many individuals with GAD report they have felt anxious their entire lives. The essential symptom of GAD is excessive anxiety and worry about numerous events or activities. The intensity, duration, and/or frequency of the anxiety and worry are out of proportion to the actual likelihood or impact of the anticipated event. The individual finds it difficult to control their worry and prevent worrisome thoughts from interfering with attention to everyday tasks.¹

Treatment of GAD typically consists of psychotherapy and pharma­cotherapy. Several studies have suggested that concurrent psychotherapy amplifies the benefits of pharmacotherapy.^2-5 Additionally, combined treatment may differentially target specific symptoms (eg, cognitive vs somatic). The addition of psychotherapy may also increase treatment adherence and decrease potential adverse effects of pharmacotherapy.

Multiple classes of medications are available for treating GAD. Current guidelines and evidence suggest that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) should be considered a first-line intervention, followed by serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.^6-11 While the evidence supporting pharmacotherapy for GAD continues to expand, many patients with GAD do not respond to first-line treatment. There is limited data regarding second-line or augmentation strategies for treating these patients. Because current treatment options for GAD are commonly associated with suboptimal treatment outcomes, researchers are investigating the use of nonpharma­cologic biological interventions, such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which was first cleared by the FDA to treat major depressive disorder (MDD) in 2008.

In Part 1 of this 2-part article, we review 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biological interventions for GAD that have been published within the last 5 years (Table^12-19).

1. Strawn JR, Mills JA, Schroeder H, et al. Escitalopram in adolescents with generalized anxiety disorder: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2020;81(5):20m13396. doi:10.4088/JCP.20m13396

GAD is highly prevalent in adolescents, and SSRIs are often used as first-line agents. However, treatment response is often variable, and clinicians often use trial-and-error to identify an appropriate medication and dose that will result in meaningful improvement. Understanding an individual’s pharmacokinetic response may help predict response and guide therapy. Adult studies have shown cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 metabolizes several SSRIs, including escitalopram, with faster CYP2C19 metabolism leading to decreased plasma concentrations. Strawn et al¹² studied the effects of escitalopram in adolescents with GAD as well as the effects of CYP2C19 metabolism.

Study design

• A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial evaluated 51 adolescents (age 12 to 17) who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD. They had a baseline Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS) score ≥15 and a Clinical Global Impressions–Severity (CGI-S) Scale score ≥4.
• Participants were randomized to escitalo­pram (n = 26; scheduled titration to 15 mg/d, then flexible to 20 mg/d), or placebo (n = 25) and monitored for 8 weeks.
• Patients with panic disorder, agoraphobia, or social anxiety disorder were also enrolled, but GAD was the primary diagnosis.
• The primary outcome was change in PARS score and change from baseline in CGI-S and Clinical Global Impressions–Improvement (CGI-I) scale scores, with assessments completed at Week 1, Week 2, Week 4, Week 6, and Week 8, or at early termination.
• Genomic DNA was obtained via buccal swab to assess 9 alleles of CYP2C19. Plasma concentrations of escitalopram and its major metabolite, desmethylescitalopram, were collected to assess plasma escitalopram and desmethylescitalopram area under the curve for 24 hours (AUC_0-24) and maximum plasma concentration (C_MAX).

Outcomes

• Escitalopram was superior to placebo, evident by statistically significantly greater changes in PARS and CGI scores.
• Greater improvement over time on PARS was correlated with intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizers, and greater response as measured by CGI-I was associated with having at least 1 long allele of SLC6A4 and being an intermediate CYP2C19 metabolizer.
• While plasma escitalopram exposure (AUC_0-24) significantly decreased and desmethylcitalopram-to-escitalopram ratios increased with faster CYP2C19 metabolism at 15 mg/d, escitalopram exposure at the 15 mg/d dose and escitalopram-to-desmethyl­citalopram ratios did not differ at Week 8 between responders and nonresponders. Patients with activation symptoms had higher C_MAX and AUC_0-24.
• Changes in vital signs, corrected QT interval, and adverse events were similar in both groups.

Conclusions/limitations

• For adolescents with GAD, escitalopram showed a benefit compared to placebo.
• Allelic differences in CYP2C19 metabolism may lead to variations in pharmacokinetics, and understanding a patient’s CYP2C19 phenotype may help guide dosing escitalopram and predicting adverse effects.
• This study enrolled a small, predominantly female, White, treatment-naïve sample, which may limit conclusions on allelic differences. Additionally, the sample included adolescents with severe anxiety and comorbid anxiety conditions, which may limit generalizability.

Continue to: #2

Vortioxetine, an FDA-approved antidepressant, has been shown to improve anxiety symptoms in patients with GAD. Additionally, vortioxetine has shown positive effects in patients with MDD, with greater improvement seen in the working and professional population. Due to the overlap between MDD and GAD, Christensen et al¹³ assessed the effectiveness of vortioxetine on anxiety symptoms in individuals who were working.

Study design

• Researchers conducted a post-hoc analysis of a previously completed randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 301 patients as well as a previously completed randomized, placebo-controlled relapse prevention study of 687 patients. Patients in both groups met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD.
• Inclusion criteria included a Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) score ≥20 with HAM-A scores ≥2 on items 1 (anxious mood), and 2 (tension), and a Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≤16 at screening and baseline.
• Researchers compared participants who were working or pursuing an education vs the full study sample.

Outcomes

• Vortioxetine was significantly associated with benefits in anxiety symptoms, functioning, and quality of life in both working participants and the total population, with the greatest effects seen in professional (ie, managers, administrators) and associate professional (ie, technical, nursing, clerical workers, or secretarial) positions. Working participants who received placebo were more likely to relapse compared to those receiving vortioxetine.
• There did not appear to be a statistically significant benefit or increase in relapse among the skilled labor group (ie, building, electrical/factory worker, or services/sales) while receiving vortioxetine.

Conclusions/limitations

• Vortioxetine may have a more pronounced effect in patients who are working or pursuing an education vs the full GAD population, which suggests that targeting this medication at particular patient demographics may be beneficial.
• Working patients with GAD may also differ from nonworking patients by factors other than work, such as education, support system, motivation, and other personal factors.
• This study was a post-hoc analysis, which limits definitive conclusions but may help guide future studies.

Continue to: #3

3. Xie ZJ, Han N, Law S, et al. The efficacy of group cognitive-behavioural therapy plus duloxetine for generalised anxiety disorder versus duloxetine alone. Acta Neuropsychiatr. 2019;31(6):316-324. doi:10.1017/neu.2019.32

Treatment of GAD should include nonmedication options such as psychotherapy to help enhance efficacy. Few studies have evaluated whether combined cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) plus medication has more benefit than medication monotherapy, specifically in patients with GAD. In this randomized trial, Xie et al¹⁴ examined how a study population undergoing CBT and receiving duloxetine differed from those receiving duloxetine monotherapy for GAD.

Study design

• In this randomized, open-label trial, adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and had a HAM-A score >14 were randomized to group CBT plus duloxetine (n = 89) or duloxetine only (n = 81), with follow-up at Week 4, Week 8, and Month 3.
• The primary outcomes included response and remission rates based on HAM-A score. Secondary outcomes included HAM-A total score reductions, psychic anxiety (HAMA-PA) and somatic anxiety (HAMA-SA) subscale score reductions, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score reductions, and reductions in overall illness severity as measured by CGI-S, the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale, and the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey.

Outcomes

• At Week 4, combined therapy was superior to duloxetine alone as evident by the primary and most secondary outcomes, with continued benefits but smaller effect size at Week 8.
• At Month 3, combined therapy was significantly better only in HAM-A total score and HAMA-PA score reductions.

Conclusions/limitations

• Patients who received group CBT plus duloxetine treatment experienced faster improvement of GAD symptoms compared to patients who received duloxetine monotherapy, though the difference reduced over time.
• The most benefit appeared to be for psychic anxiety symptoms, which suggests that group CBT can help change cognition style.
• This study had a short follow-up period, high dropout rates, and recruited patients from only 1 institution.

4. Huang Z, Li Y, Bianchi MT, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right parietal cortex for comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and insomnia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled pilot study. Brain Stimul. 2018;11(5):1103-1109. doi:10.1016/j.brs.2018.05.016

Insomnia and anxiety often present together. rTMS has demonstrated efficacy in various psychiatric illnesses, but there is limited research regarding its effectiveness in GAD. Additionally, little is known regarding the benefits of rTMS for patients with comorbid insomnia and GAD. Huang et al¹⁵ examined the therapeutic effects of rTMS in patients with comorbid insomnia and GAD.

Continue to: Study design

• Adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD and insomnia were randomized to receive 10 days of low-intensity rTMS on the right parietal lobe (n = 18) or a sham procedure (n = 18). Inclusion criteria also included a score ≥14 on HAM-A, ≥7 on the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and <20 on the 24-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).
• rTMS settings included a frequency of 1 Hz, 90% intensity of the resting motor threshold, 3 trains of 500 pulses, and an intertrain interval of 10 minutes.
• Study measurements included HAM-A, PSQI, and HAM-D at baseline, posttreatment at Day 10, Week 2 follow-up, and Month 1 follow-up.

Outcomes

• Significantly more patients in the rTMS group had a meaningful response as measured by change in HAM-A score at posttreatment and both follow-up sessions.
• The rTMS group had significant remission compared to the sham group at posttreatment and Week 2 follow-up, but showed no significant difference at Month 1.
• There were significant improvements in insomnia symptoms in the rTMS group at the posttreatment and follow-up time points.

Conclusions/limitations

• Low-frequency rTMS over the right parietal cortex is an effective treatment option for patients with comorbid GAD and insomnia.
• This study had a small sample size consisting of participants from only 1 institution.

5. Amsterdam JD, Li QS, Xie SX, et al. Putative antidepressant effect of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.) oral extract in subjects with comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and depression. J Altern Complement Med. 2020;26(9):813-819. doi:10.1089/acm.2019.0252

GAD often presents with comorbid depression. While antidepressants are the standard approach to treatment of both conditions, patients may seek alternative therapies. In previous studies,²⁰Matricaria chamomilla L. (chamomile) has been shown to reduce GAD symptoms, and post-hoc analyses²¹ have shown its benefits in treating depression. Amsterdam et al¹⁶ assessed the effects of chamomile on patients with GAD with and without comorbid depression.

Study design

• As part of an RCT, 179 adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD underwent an 8-week open-label phase of chamomile extract therapy (1,500 mg/d). Participants who responded were enrolled in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-control trial. Amsterdam et al¹⁶ specifically analyzed the 8-week open label portion of the study.
• Participants were divided into 2 groups: GAD without comorbid depression (n = 100), and GAD with comorbid depression (n = 79).
• Outcome measures included the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7), HAM-A, Beck Anxiety Inventory, 17-item HAM-D, 6-item HAM-D, and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Continue to: Outcomes

• Patients with comorbid depression experienced a greater, statistically significant reduction in HAM-D core symptom scores (depressed mood, guilt, suicide ideation, work and interest, retardation, and somatic symptoms general).
• The comorbid depression group experienced a trend (but not significant) reduction in total HAM-D and BDI scores.

Conclusions/limitations

• Chamomile extract may help reduce depressive symptoms in patients with GAD who also have depression.
• This study was not powered to detect significant differences in depression outcome ratings between groups, was exploratory, and was not a controlled trial.

6. Dilkov D, Hawken ER, Kaludiev E, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex in the treatment of generalized anxiety dis­order: a randomized, double-blind sham controlled clinical trial. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2017;78:61-65. doi:10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.05.018

Nonpharmacologic modalities, including rTMS, may be effective alternatives for treating GAD. Dilkov et al¹⁷ examined whether excitatory rTMS is an effective treatment option for GAD.

Study design

• In this double-blind, sham-controlled trial, adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD were randomized to excitatory rTMS of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex therapy (n = 15) or a sham procedure (n = 25).
• rTMS settings included a frequency of 20 Hz, 110% intensity of resting motor threshold, 20 trains, 9 seconds/train, and 51-second intertrain intervals.
• Outcomes were measured by HAM-A, CGI, and 21-item HAM-D.

Outcomes

• At the conclusion of 25 treatments, the rTMS group experienced a statistically significant reduction in GAD symptoms as measured by HAM-A.
• Improvements were also noted in the CGI and HAM-D scores in the rTMS group compared to the sham group.
• The benefits continued at the Week 4 follow-up visit.

Conclusions/limitations

• Participants in the rTMS group experienced a significant decrease in anxiety symptoms, which suggests that rTMS may be an effective treatment for GAD.
• The benefits appear sustainable even after the conclusion of the rTMS sessions.
• This study had a small sample size and excluded patients with comorbid psychiatric conditions.

Continue to: #7

Dysregulated stress response has been proposed as a mechanism for anxiety.^22,23 Patients with GAD have been reported to have alterations in cortisol levels, specifically lower morning cortisol levels and a less steep diurnal cortisol slope; however, it is not clear how treatment affects these levels. Keefe et al¹⁸ examined whether chamomile therapy in patients with GAD affects cortisol levels.

Study design

• In an 8-week, open-label study, 45 adults who met DSM-IV criteria for GAD received chamomile extract capsules 1,500 mg/d.
• Participants used at-home kits to collect their saliva so cortisol levels could be assessed at 8 am, 12 pm, 4 pm, and 8 pm.
• The GAD-7 was used to assess anxiety symptoms.

Outcomes

• Participants who experienced greater improvements in GAD symptoms had relative increases in morning cortisol levels compared to their baseline levels.
• Participants who experienced greater improvements in GAD symptoms had a greater decrease in cortisol levels throughout the day (ie, greater diurnal slope).

Conclusions/limitations

• Greater improvement in GAD symptoms after treatment with chamomile extract appeared to be correlated with increased morning cortisol levels and a steeper diurnal cortisol slope after awakening, which suggests that treatment of GAD may help improve dysregulated stress biology.
• This study had a small sample size and was not placebo-controlled.

Continue to: #8

Compared to the medications that are FDA-approved for GAD, agomelatine has a different mechanism of action, and has shown to be efficacious and tolerable in previous studies.^24-26 In this study, Stein et al¹⁹ compared agomelatine vs escitalopram for patients with severe GAD.

Study design

• In a 12-week, double-blind study, adults who met DSM-IV-TR criteria for GAD were randomized to agomelatine 25 to 50 mg/d (n = 261) or escitalopram 10 to 20 mg/d (n = 262).
• Participants had to meet specific criteria for severe anxiety, including a HAM-A total score ≥25.
• The primary outcome measure was the change in HAM-A score from baseline to Week 12. Secondary outcome measures included the rate of response as determined by change in scores on the HAM-PA, HAM-SA, CGI, Toronto Hospital Alertness Test, Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale, and Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire.

Outcomes

• Participants in both the agomelatine and escitalopram groups reported similar, clinically significant mean reductions in HAM-A scores at Week 12.
• There were no significant differences in secondary measures between the 2 groups, and both groups experienced improvement in psychic and somatic symptoms, alertness, and sleep.
• Overall, the agomelatine group experienced fewer adverse events compared to the escitalopram group.

Conclusions/limitations

• Agomelatine may be an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for severe GAD.
• This study excluded individuals with comorbid conditions.

Bottom Line

Recent research suggests that escitalopram; vortioxetine; agomelatine; duloxetine plus group cognitive-behavioral therapy; repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; and chamomile extract can improve symptoms in patients with generalized anxiety disorder.

Related Resources

• Abell SR, El-Mallakh RS. Serotonin-mediated anxiety: how to recognize and treat it. Current Psychiatry. 2021;20(11):37-40. doi:10.12788/cp.0168

Drug Brand Names

Duloxetine • Cymbalta
Escitalopram • Lexapro
Vortioxetine • Trintellix

Optimal diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illness requires clinicians to be able to connect mental and physical symptoms. Direct brain neurotransmitter testing is presently in its infancy and the science of defining the underlying mechanisms of psychiatric disorders lags behind the obvious clinical needs. We are not yet equipped to clearly recognize which neurotransmitters cause which symptoms. In this article series, we suggest an indirect way of judging neurotransmitter activity by recognizing specific mental and physical symptoms connected by common biology. Here we present hypothetical clinical cases to emphasize a possible way of analyzing symptoms in order to identify underlying pathology and guide more effective treatment. The descriptions we present in this series do not reflect the entire set of symptoms caused by the neurotransmitters we discuss; we created them based on what is presently known (or suspected). Additional research is needed to confirm or disprove the hypothesis we present. We argue that in cases of multiple psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, the development and approval of medications currently is based on an umbrella descriptive diagnoses, and disregards the various underlying causes of such conditions. Similar to how the many types of pneumonias are treated differently depending on the infective agent, we suggested the same possible causative approach to various types of depression and pain.

Part 1 of this series (Current Psychiatry, May 2022) looked into serotonin- and dopamine-associated symptoms. In Part 2 (Current Psychiatry, June 2022), we presented cases related to endorphin and norepinephrine dysfunction. We conclude the series by exploring gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA)- and glutamate-based clinical symptoms. Table 1 outlines medical and psychiatric symptoms that likely reflect GABA excess^1-9 and deficiency,^1-4,6,9-17 and Table 2 lists symptoms that likely reflect glutamate excess^9,18-31 and deficiency.^9,32-38 It is essential to note that both the quantity of neurotransmitters as well as the quality of the transmission (as in receptors, cellular pumps, and distribution mechanisms) are important.

GABA excess (Table 1^1-9)

Ms. V is brought to your office by a friend. She complains of pain all over her body, itchiness, inability to focus, and dizziness.^1,5,6,9 She is puzzled by how little pain she feels when she cuts her finger but by how much pain she is in every day, though her clinicians have not discovered a reason for her pain.^1,6,9 She states that her fatigue is so severe that she can sleep 15 hours a day.^1-6,9 Her obstructive and central sleep apnea have been treated, but this did not improve her fatigue.^3,5,9 She is forgetful and has been diagnosed with depression, though she says she does not feel depressed.^1,5,6 Nothing is pleasant to her, but she is prone to abnormal excitement and unpredictable behavior.^1,4,6,7

A physical exam shows slow breathing, bradycardia, decreased deep tendon reflexes, and decreased muscle tone.^1,5,6,9 Ms. V complains of double vision^1,5,6,9 and problems with gait and balance,^5,6,9 as well as tremors.^1,4-7 She experienced enuresis well into adulthood^1,5,6,9 and is prone to weight gain, dyspepsia, and constipation.^8,9 She cannot understand people who have anxiety, and is prone to melancholy.^4-6,9 Ms. V had been treated with electroconvulsive therapy in the past but states that she “had to have so much electricity, they gave up on me.”

Impression. Ms. V exhibits multiple symptoms associated with GABA excess. Dopaminergic medications such as methylphenidate or amphetamines may be helpful, as they suppress GABA. GABAergic medications and supplements should be avoided in such a patient. Noradrenergic medications including antidepressants with corresponding activity or vasopressors may be beneficial. Suppression of glutamate increases GABA, which is why ketamine in any formulation should be avoided in a patient such as Ms. V.

GABA deficiency (Table 1^1-4,6,9-17)

Mr. N complains of depression,^{1,3,4,6,12,16} pain all over his body, tingling in his hands and feet,^1,6,9 a constant dull headache,² and severe insomnia.^2,3,9,10 He cannot control his anxiety and, in general, has problems relaxing. In the office, he is jumpy, tremulous, and fidgety during the interview and examination.^1,3,4,6,9,12 His muscle tone is high^1,9,11 and he feels stiff.^6,9 Mr. N’s pupils are narrow^1,9; he is hyper-reflexive^1,9,11 and reports “Klonopin withdrawal seizures.”^1,6,9 He loves alcohol because “it makes me feel good” and helps with his mind, which otherwise “never stops.”^1,6,13 Mr. N is frequently anxious and very sensitive to pain, especially when he is upset. He was diagnosed with fibromyalgia by his primary care doctor, who says that irritable bowel is common in patients like him.^1,6 His anxiety disables him.^1-4,6,9-12 His sister reports that in addition to having difficulty relaxing, Mr. N is easily frustrated and sleeps poorly because he says he has racing thoughts.¹⁰ She mentions that her brother’s gambling addiction endangered his finances on several occasions^4,12,15 and he was suspected of having autism spectrum disorder.^4,12 Mr. N is frequently overwhelmed, including during your interview.^1,3,4,6 He is sensitive to light and noise^1,9 and complains of palpitations^1,3,4,6,9 and frequent shortness of breath.^1,3,4,9 He mentions his hands and feet often are cold, especially when he is anxious.^1,3,4,6,9 Not eating at regular times makes his symptoms even worse. Mr. N commonly feels depressed, but his anxiety is more bothersome.^{1,3,4,6,12,16} His ongoing complaints include difficulty concentrating and memory problems,^3,4,12,13 as well as a constant feeling of being overwhelmed.^1,3,4,6 His restless leg syndrome requires ongoing treatment.^1,9,14 Though uncommon, Mr. N has episodes of slowing and weakness, which are associated with growth hormone problems.¹⁶ In the past, he experienced gut motility dysregulation^9,10 and prolonged bleeding that worried his doctors.¹⁷

Impression. Mr. N shows multiple symptoms associated with GABA deficiency. The deficiency of GABA activity ultimately causes an increase in norepinephrine and dopamine firing; therefore, symptoms of GABA deficiency are partially aligned with symptoms of dopamine and norepinephrine excess. GABAergic medications would be most beneficial for such patients. Anticonvulsants (eg, gabapentin and pregabalin) are preferable. Acamprostate may be considered. For long-term use, benzodiapines are as problematic as opioids and should be avoided, if possible. The use of opioids in such patients is especially counter­productive. Some supplements and vitamins may enhance GABA activity. Avoiding bupropion and stimulants would be wise. Ketamine in any formulation would be a good choice in this scenario. Sedating antipsychotic medications have a promise for patients such as Mr. N. The muscle relaxant baclofen frequently helps with these patients’ pain, anxiety, and sleep.

Continue to: Glutamate excess

Mr. B is anxious and bites his fingernails and cheek while you interview him.¹⁸ He has scars on his lower arms that were caused by years of picking his skin.¹⁸ He complains of headache^28-30 and deep muscle, whole body,^19-23 and abdominal pain.²⁰ Both hyperesthesia (he calls it “fibromyalgia”)^9,19,20,22 and irritable bowel syndrome flare up if he eats Chinese food that contains monosodium glutamate.²¹ This also increases nausea, vomiting, and hypertensive episodes.^{9,19,20,22,24,26} Mr. B developed and received treatment for opioid use disorder after being prescribed morphine for the treatment of fibromyalgia.²² He is being treated for posttraumatic stress disorder at the VA hospital and is bitter that his flashbacks are not controlled.²³ Once, he experienced a frank psychosis.²⁶ He commonly experiences dissociative symptoms and suicidality.^23,26 The sensations of crawling skin,¹⁸ panic attacks, and nightmares complicate his life.²³ Mr. B is angry that his “incompetent” psychiatrist stopped his diazepam and that it “almost killed him” by causing delirium.²⁴ He suffers from severe neuropathic pain in his feet and says that his pain, depression, and anxiety respond especially well to ketamine treatment.^9,23,26 He is prone to euphoria and has had several manic episodes.²⁶ In childhood, his parents brought him to a psychiatrist to address episodes of head-banging and self-hitting.¹⁸ Mr. B developed seizures; presently, they are controlled, but he remains chronically dizzy.^9,24,25,27 He claims that his headaches and migraines respond only to methadone and that sumatriptan makes them worse, especially in prolonged treatment.^28-30 He is tachycardic, tremulous, and makes you feel deeply uneasy.^9,24

Impression. Mr. B has many symptoms of glutamate hyperactivity. The use of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists such as memantine and dextromethorphan and alpha-blockers (eg, clonidine and tizanidine) may be considered. Avoiding addictive substances would be prudent, though the use of ketamine seems rational. Anticonvulsants are recommended, along with sedating antidepressants. Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors may not be the best choice because norepinephrine potentiates glutamate function. Dopamine inhibits glutamate, so stimulants, bupropion, and amantadine³¹ may be paradoxically applied to treatment of both cognitive and physical symptoms (including pain) in a patient with glutamate hyperactivity.

Glutamate deficiency (Table 2^9,32-38)

Mr. Z feels dull, fatigued, and unhappy.^32,33,37 He is overweight and moves slowly. Sometimes he is so slow and clumsy that he seems obtunded.^9,36,37 He states that his peripheral neuropathy does not cause him pain, though his neurodiagnostic results are unfavorable.³² Mr. Z’s overall pain threshold is high, and he is unhappy with people who complain about pain because “who cares?”³² His memory and concentration were never good.^33,37,38 He suffers from insomnia and is frequently miserable and disheartened.^32,33,38 People view him as melancholic.^33,37 Mr. Z is mildly depressed, but he experiences aggressive outbursts^37,38 and bouts of anxiety,^32,33,36,38 psychosis, and mania.^33,37,38 He is visibly confused³⁷ and says it is easy for him to get disoriented and lost.^37,38 His medical history includes long-term constipation and several episodes of ileus.^9,34,35 His childhood-onset seizures are controlled presently.³³ He complains of frequent bouts of dizziness and headache.^32,34,35 On physical exam, Mr. Z has dry mouth, hypotension, diminished deep tendon reflexes, and bradycardia.^9,34,35 He sought a consultation from an ophthalmologist to evaluate an eye movement problem.^33,36 No cause was found, but the ophthalmologist thought this problem might have the same underlying mechanism as his dysarthria.³³ Mr. Z’s balance is bothersome, but his podiatrist was unable to help him to correct his abnormal gait.^33-36 A friend who came with Mr. Z mentioned she had noticed personality changes in him over the last several months.³⁷

Impression. Mr. Z exhibits multiple signs of low glutamatergic function. Amino acid taurine has been shown in rodents to increase brain levels of both GABA and glutamate. Glutamate is metabolized into GABA, so low glutamate and low GABA symptoms overlap. Glutamine, which is present in meat, fish, eggs, dairy, wheat, and some vegetables, is converted in the body into glutamate and may be considered for a patient with low glutamate function. The medication approach to such a patient would be similar to the treatment of a low GABA patient and includes glutamate-enhancing magnesium and dextromethorphan.

Rarely is just 1 neurotransmitter involved

Most real-world patients have mixed presentations with more than 1 neurotransmitter implicated in the pathology of their symptoms. A clinician’s ability to dissect the clinical picture and select an appropriate treatment must be based on history and observed behavior because no lab results or reliable tests are presently available.

Continue to: The most studied...

The most studied neurotransmitter in depression and anxiety is serotonin, and for many years psychiatrists have paid too much attention to it. Similarly, pain physicians have been overly focused on the opioid system. Excessive attention to these neurochemicals has overshadowed multiple other (no less impactful) neuro­transmitters. Dopamine is frequently not attended to by many physicians who treat chronic pain. Psychiatrists also may overlook underlying endorphin or glutamate dysfunction in patients with psychiatric illness.

Nonpharmacologic approaches can affect neurotransmitters

With all the emphasis on pharmacologic treatments, it is important to remember that nonpharmacologic modalities such as exercise, diet, hydrotherapy, acupuncture, and psychotherapy can help normalize neurotransmitter function in the brain and ultimately help patients with chronic conditions. Careful use of nutritional supplements and vitamins may also be beneficial.

A hypothesis for future research

Multiple peripheral and central mechanisms define various chronic pain and psychiatric symptoms and disorders, including depression, anxiety, and fibromyalgia. The variety of mechanisms of pathologic mood and pain perception may be expressed to a different extent and in countless combinations in individual patients. This, in part, explains the variable responses to the same treatment observed in similar patients, or even in the same patient.

Clinicians should always remember that depression and anxiety as well as chronic pain (including fibromyalgia and chronic headache) are not a representation of a single condition but are the result of an assembly of different syndromes; therefore, 1 treatment does not fit all patients. Pain is ultimately recognized and comprehended centrally, making it very much a neuropsychiatric field. The optimal treatment for 2 patients with similar pain or psychiatric symptoms may be drastically different due to different underlying mechanisms that can be distinguished by looking at the symptoms other than “pain” or “depression.”

Remembering that every neurotransmitter deficiency or excess has an identifiable clinical correlation is important. Basing a treatment approach on a specific clinical presentation in a particular depressed or chronic pain patient would assure a more successful and reliable outcome.

Continue to: This 3-part series...

This 3-part series was designed to bring attention to a notion that diagnosis and treatment of diverse conditions such as “depression,” “anxiety,” or “chronic pain” should be based on clinically identifiable symptoms that may suggest specific neurotransmitter(s) involved in a specific type of each of these conditions. However, there are no well-recognized, well-established, reliable, or validated syndromes described in this series. The collection of symptoms associated with the various neuro­transmitters described in this series is not complete. We have assembled what is described in the literature as a suggestion for future research.

Bottom Line

Both high and low levels of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate may be associated with certain psychiatric and medical symptoms and disorders. An astute clinician may judge which neurotransmitter is dysfunctional based on the patient’s presentation, and tailor treatment accordingly.

Related Resources

• Arbuck DM, Salmerón JM, Mueller R. Neurotransmitter-based diagnosis and treatment: a hypothesis (part 1). Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(5):30-36. doi:10.12788/cp.0242
• Arbuck DM, Salmerón JM, Mueller R. Neurotransmitter-based diagnosis and treatment: a hypothesis (part 2). Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(6):28-33. doi:10.12788/cp.0253

Drug Brand Names

Acamprostate • Campral
Amantadine • Gocovri
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Clonidine • Catapres
Diazepam • Valium
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Ketamine • Ketalar
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Morphine • Kadian
Pregabalin • Lyrica
Sumatriptan • Imitrex
Tizanidine • Zanaflex

Optimal diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illness requires clinicians to be able to connect mental and physical symptoms. Direct brain neurotransmitter testing is presently in its infancy and the science of defining the underlying mechanisms of psychiatric disorders lags behind the obvious clinical needs. We are not yet equipped to clearly recognize which neurotransmitters cause which symptoms. In this article series, we suggest an indirect way of judging neurotransmitter activity by recognizing specific mental and physical symptoms connected by common biology. Here we present hypothetical clinical cases to emphasize a possible way of analyzing symptoms in order to identify underlying pathology and guide more effective treatment. The descriptions we present in this series do not reflect the entire set of symptoms caused by the neurotransmitters we discuss; we created them based on what is presently known (or suspected). Additional research is needed to confirm or disprove the hypothesis we present. We argue that in cases of multiple psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, the development and approval of medications currently is based on an umbrella descriptive diagnoses, and disregards the various underlying causes of such conditions. Similar to how the many types of pneumonias are treated differently depending on the infective agent, we suggested the same possible causative approach to various types of depression and pain.

Part 1 of this series (Current Psychiatry, May 2022) looked into serotonin- and dopamine-associated symptoms. In Part 2 (Current Psychiatry, June 2022), we presented cases related to endorphin and norepinephrine dysfunction. We conclude the series by exploring gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA)- and glutamate-based clinical symptoms. Table 1 outlines medical and psychiatric symptoms that likely reflect GABA excess^1-9 and deficiency,^1-4,6,9-17 and Table 2 lists symptoms that likely reflect glutamate excess^9,18-31 and deficiency.^9,32-38 It is essential to note that both the quantity of neurotransmitters as well as the quality of the transmission (as in receptors, cellular pumps, and distribution mechanisms) are important.

GABA excess (Table 1^1-9)

Ms. V is brought to your office by a friend. She complains of pain all over her body, itchiness, inability to focus, and dizziness.^1,5,6,9 She is puzzled by how little pain she feels when she cuts her finger but by how much pain she is in every day, though her clinicians have not discovered a reason for her pain.^1,6,9 She states that her fatigue is so severe that she can sleep 15 hours a day.^1-6,9 Her obstructive and central sleep apnea have been treated, but this did not improve her fatigue.^3,5,9 She is forgetful and has been diagnosed with depression, though she says she does not feel depressed.^1,5,6 Nothing is pleasant to her, but she is prone to abnormal excitement and unpredictable behavior.^1,4,6,7

A physical exam shows slow breathing, bradycardia, decreased deep tendon reflexes, and decreased muscle tone.^1,5,6,9 Ms. V complains of double vision^1,5,6,9 and problems with gait and balance,^5,6,9 as well as tremors.^1,4-7 She experienced enuresis well into adulthood^1,5,6,9 and is prone to weight gain, dyspepsia, and constipation.^8,9 She cannot understand people who have anxiety, and is prone to melancholy.^4-6,9 Ms. V had been treated with electroconvulsive therapy in the past but states that she “had to have so much electricity, they gave up on me.”

Impression. Ms. V exhibits multiple symptoms associated with GABA excess. Dopaminergic medications such as methylphenidate or amphetamines may be helpful, as they suppress GABA. GABAergic medications and supplements should be avoided in such a patient. Noradrenergic medications including antidepressants with corresponding activity or vasopressors may be beneficial. Suppression of glutamate increases GABA, which is why ketamine in any formulation should be avoided in a patient such as Ms. V.

GABA deficiency (Table 1^1-4,6,9-17)

Mr. N complains of depression,^{1,3,4,6,12,16} pain all over his body, tingling in his hands and feet,^1,6,9 a constant dull headache,² and severe insomnia.^2,3,9,10 He cannot control his anxiety and, in general, has problems relaxing. In the office, he is jumpy, tremulous, and fidgety during the interview and examination.^1,3,4,6,9,12 His muscle tone is high^1,9,11 and he feels stiff.^6,9 Mr. N’s pupils are narrow^1,9; he is hyper-reflexive^1,9,11 and reports “Klonopin withdrawal seizures.”^1,6,9 He loves alcohol because “it makes me feel good” and helps with his mind, which otherwise “never stops.”^1,6,13 Mr. N is frequently anxious and very sensitive to pain, especially when he is upset. He was diagnosed with fibromyalgia by his primary care doctor, who says that irritable bowel is common in patients like him.^1,6 His anxiety disables him.^1-4,6,9-12 His sister reports that in addition to having difficulty relaxing, Mr. N is easily frustrated and sleeps poorly because he says he has racing thoughts.¹⁰ She mentions that her brother’s gambling addiction endangered his finances on several occasions^4,12,15 and he was suspected of having autism spectrum disorder.^4,12 Mr. N is frequently overwhelmed, including during your interview.^1,3,4,6 He is sensitive to light and noise^1,9 and complains of palpitations^1,3,4,6,9 and frequent shortness of breath.^1,3,4,9 He mentions his hands and feet often are cold, especially when he is anxious.^1,3,4,6,9 Not eating at regular times makes his symptoms even worse. Mr. N commonly feels depressed, but his anxiety is more bothersome.^{1,3,4,6,12,16} His ongoing complaints include difficulty concentrating and memory problems,^3,4,12,13 as well as a constant feeling of being overwhelmed.^1,3,4,6 His restless leg syndrome requires ongoing treatment.^1,9,14 Though uncommon, Mr. N has episodes of slowing and weakness, which are associated with growth hormone problems.¹⁶ In the past, he experienced gut motility dysregulation^9,10 and prolonged bleeding that worried his doctors.¹⁷

Impression. Mr. N shows multiple symptoms associated with GABA deficiency. The deficiency of GABA activity ultimately causes an increase in norepinephrine and dopamine firing; therefore, symptoms of GABA deficiency are partially aligned with symptoms of dopamine and norepinephrine excess. GABAergic medications would be most beneficial for such patients. Anticonvulsants (eg, gabapentin and pregabalin) are preferable. Acamprostate may be considered. For long-term use, benzodiapines are as problematic as opioids and should be avoided, if possible. The use of opioids in such patients is especially counter­productive. Some supplements and vitamins may enhance GABA activity. Avoiding bupropion and stimulants would be wise. Ketamine in any formulation would be a good choice in this scenario. Sedating antipsychotic medications have a promise for patients such as Mr. N. The muscle relaxant baclofen frequently helps with these patients’ pain, anxiety, and sleep.

Continue to: Glutamate excess

Mr. B is anxious and bites his fingernails and cheek while you interview him.¹⁸ He has scars on his lower arms that were caused by years of picking his skin.¹⁸ He complains of headache^28-30 and deep muscle, whole body,^19-23 and abdominal pain.²⁰ Both hyperesthesia (he calls it “fibromyalgia”)^9,19,20,22 and irritable bowel syndrome flare up if he eats Chinese food that contains monosodium glutamate.²¹ This also increases nausea, vomiting, and hypertensive episodes.^{9,19,20,22,24,26} Mr. B developed and received treatment for opioid use disorder after being prescribed morphine for the treatment of fibromyalgia.²² He is being treated for posttraumatic stress disorder at the VA hospital and is bitter that his flashbacks are not controlled.²³ Once, he experienced a frank psychosis.²⁶ He commonly experiences dissociative symptoms and suicidality.^23,26 The sensations of crawling skin,¹⁸ panic attacks, and nightmares complicate his life.²³ Mr. B is angry that his “incompetent” psychiatrist stopped his diazepam and that it “almost killed him” by causing delirium.²⁴ He suffers from severe neuropathic pain in his feet and says that his pain, depression, and anxiety respond especially well to ketamine treatment.^9,23,26 He is prone to euphoria and has had several manic episodes.²⁶ In childhood, his parents brought him to a psychiatrist to address episodes of head-banging and self-hitting.¹⁸ Mr. B developed seizures; presently, they are controlled, but he remains chronically dizzy.^9,24,25,27 He claims that his headaches and migraines respond only to methadone and that sumatriptan makes them worse, especially in prolonged treatment.^28-30 He is tachycardic, tremulous, and makes you feel deeply uneasy.^9,24

Impression. Mr. B has many symptoms of glutamate hyperactivity. The use of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists such as memantine and dextromethorphan and alpha-blockers (eg, clonidine and tizanidine) may be considered. Avoiding addictive substances would be prudent, though the use of ketamine seems rational. Anticonvulsants are recommended, along with sedating antidepressants. Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors may not be the best choice because norepinephrine potentiates glutamate function. Dopamine inhibits glutamate, so stimulants, bupropion, and amantadine³¹ may be paradoxically applied to treatment of both cognitive and physical symptoms (including pain) in a patient with glutamate hyperactivity.

Glutamate deficiency (Table 2^9,32-38)

Mr. Z feels dull, fatigued, and unhappy.^32,33,37 He is overweight and moves slowly. Sometimes he is so slow and clumsy that he seems obtunded.^9,36,37 He states that his peripheral neuropathy does not cause him pain, though his neurodiagnostic results are unfavorable.³² Mr. Z’s overall pain threshold is high, and he is unhappy with people who complain about pain because “who cares?”³² His memory and concentration were never good.^33,37,38 He suffers from insomnia and is frequently miserable and disheartened.^32,33,38 People view him as melancholic.^33,37 Mr. Z is mildly depressed, but he experiences aggressive outbursts^37,38 and bouts of anxiety,^32,33,36,38 psychosis, and mania.^33,37,38 He is visibly confused³⁷ and says it is easy for him to get disoriented and lost.^37,38 His medical history includes long-term constipation and several episodes of ileus.^9,34,35 His childhood-onset seizures are controlled presently.³³ He complains of frequent bouts of dizziness and headache.^32,34,35 On physical exam, Mr. Z has dry mouth, hypotension, diminished deep tendon reflexes, and bradycardia.^9,34,35 He sought a consultation from an ophthalmologist to evaluate an eye movement problem.^33,36 No cause was found, but the ophthalmologist thought this problem might have the same underlying mechanism as his dysarthria.³³ Mr. Z’s balance is bothersome, but his podiatrist was unable to help him to correct his abnormal gait.^33-36 A friend who came with Mr. Z mentioned she had noticed personality changes in him over the last several months.³⁷

Impression. Mr. Z exhibits multiple signs of low glutamatergic function. Amino acid taurine has been shown in rodents to increase brain levels of both GABA and glutamate. Glutamate is metabolized into GABA, so low glutamate and low GABA symptoms overlap. Glutamine, which is present in meat, fish, eggs, dairy, wheat, and some vegetables, is converted in the body into glutamate and may be considered for a patient with low glutamate function. The medication approach to such a patient would be similar to the treatment of a low GABA patient and includes glutamate-enhancing magnesium and dextromethorphan.

Rarely is just 1 neurotransmitter involved

Most real-world patients have mixed presentations with more than 1 neurotransmitter implicated in the pathology of their symptoms. A clinician’s ability to dissect the clinical picture and select an appropriate treatment must be based on history and observed behavior because no lab results or reliable tests are presently available.

Continue to: The most studied...

The most studied neurotransmitter in depression and anxiety is serotonin, and for many years psychiatrists have paid too much attention to it. Similarly, pain physicians have been overly focused on the opioid system. Excessive attention to these neurochemicals has overshadowed multiple other (no less impactful) neuro­transmitters. Dopamine is frequently not attended to by many physicians who treat chronic pain. Psychiatrists also may overlook underlying endorphin or glutamate dysfunction in patients with psychiatric illness.

Nonpharmacologic approaches can affect neurotransmitters

With all the emphasis on pharmacologic treatments, it is important to remember that nonpharmacologic modalities such as exercise, diet, hydrotherapy, acupuncture, and psychotherapy can help normalize neurotransmitter function in the brain and ultimately help patients with chronic conditions. Careful use of nutritional supplements and vitamins may also be beneficial.

A hypothesis for future research

Multiple peripheral and central mechanisms define various chronic pain and psychiatric symptoms and disorders, including depression, anxiety, and fibromyalgia. The variety of mechanisms of pathologic mood and pain perception may be expressed to a different extent and in countless combinations in individual patients. This, in part, explains the variable responses to the same treatment observed in similar patients, or even in the same patient.

Clinicians should always remember that depression and anxiety as well as chronic pain (including fibromyalgia and chronic headache) are not a representation of a single condition but are the result of an assembly of different syndromes; therefore, 1 treatment does not fit all patients. Pain is ultimately recognized and comprehended centrally, making it very much a neuropsychiatric field. The optimal treatment for 2 patients with similar pain or psychiatric symptoms may be drastically different due to different underlying mechanisms that can be distinguished by looking at the symptoms other than “pain” or “depression.”

Remembering that every neurotransmitter deficiency or excess has an identifiable clinical correlation is important. Basing a treatment approach on a specific clinical presentation in a particular depressed or chronic pain patient would assure a more successful and reliable outcome.

Continue to: This 3-part series...

This 3-part series was designed to bring attention to a notion that diagnosis and treatment of diverse conditions such as “depression,” “anxiety,” or “chronic pain” should be based on clinically identifiable symptoms that may suggest specific neurotransmitter(s) involved in a specific type of each of these conditions. However, there are no well-recognized, well-established, reliable, or validated syndromes described in this series. The collection of symptoms associated with the various neuro­transmitters described in this series is not complete. We have assembled what is described in the literature as a suggestion for future research.

Bottom Line

Both high and low levels of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate may be associated with certain psychiatric and medical symptoms and disorders. An astute clinician may judge which neurotransmitter is dysfunctional based on the patient’s presentation, and tailor treatment accordingly.

Related Resources

• Arbuck DM, Salmerón JM, Mueller R. Neurotransmitter-based diagnosis and treatment: a hypothesis (part 1). Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(5):30-36. doi:10.12788/cp.0242
• Arbuck DM, Salmerón JM, Mueller R. Neurotransmitter-based diagnosis and treatment: a hypothesis (part 2). Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(6):28-33. doi:10.12788/cp.0253

Drug Brand Names

Acamprostate • Campral
Amantadine • Gocovri
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Clonidine • Catapres
Diazepam • Valium
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Ketamine • Ketalar
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Morphine • Kadian
Pregabalin • Lyrica
Sumatriptan • Imitrex
Tizanidine • Zanaflex

Optimal diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric illness requires clinicians to be able to connect mental and physical symptoms. Direct brain neurotransmitter testing is presently in its infancy and the science of defining the underlying mechanisms of psychiatric disorders lags behind the obvious clinical needs. We are not yet equipped to clearly recognize which neurotransmitters cause which symptoms. In this article series, we suggest an indirect way of judging neurotransmitter activity by recognizing specific mental and physical symptoms connected by common biology. Here we present hypothetical clinical cases to emphasize a possible way of analyzing symptoms in order to identify underlying pathology and guide more effective treatment. The descriptions we present in this series do not reflect the entire set of symptoms caused by the neurotransmitters we discuss; we created them based on what is presently known (or suspected). Additional research is needed to confirm or disprove the hypothesis we present. We argue that in cases of multiple psychiatric disorders and chronic pain, the development and approval of medications currently is based on an umbrella descriptive diagnoses, and disregards the various underlying causes of such conditions. Similar to how the many types of pneumonias are treated differently depending on the infective agent, we suggested the same possible causative approach to various types of depression and pain.

Part 1 of this series (Current Psychiatry, May 2022) looked into serotonin- and dopamine-associated symptoms. In Part 2 (Current Psychiatry, June 2022), we presented cases related to endorphin and norepinephrine dysfunction. We conclude the series by exploring gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA)- and glutamate-based clinical symptoms. Table 1 outlines medical and psychiatric symptoms that likely reflect GABA excess^1-9 and deficiency,^1-4,6,9-17 and Table 2 lists symptoms that likely reflect glutamate excess^9,18-31 and deficiency.^9,32-38 It is essential to note that both the quantity of neurotransmitters as well as the quality of the transmission (as in receptors, cellular pumps, and distribution mechanisms) are important.

GABA excess (Table 1^1-9)

Ms. V is brought to your office by a friend. She complains of pain all over her body, itchiness, inability to focus, and dizziness.^1,5,6,9 She is puzzled by how little pain she feels when she cuts her finger but by how much pain she is in every day, though her clinicians have not discovered a reason for her pain.^1,6,9 She states that her fatigue is so severe that she can sleep 15 hours a day.^1-6,9 Her obstructive and central sleep apnea have been treated, but this did not improve her fatigue.^3,5,9 She is forgetful and has been diagnosed with depression, though she says she does not feel depressed.^1,5,6 Nothing is pleasant to her, but she is prone to abnormal excitement and unpredictable behavior.^1,4,6,7

A physical exam shows slow breathing, bradycardia, decreased deep tendon reflexes, and decreased muscle tone.^1,5,6,9 Ms. V complains of double vision^1,5,6,9 and problems with gait and balance,^5,6,9 as well as tremors.^1,4-7 She experienced enuresis well into adulthood^1,5,6,9 and is prone to weight gain, dyspepsia, and constipation.^8,9 She cannot understand people who have anxiety, and is prone to melancholy.^4-6,9 Ms. V had been treated with electroconvulsive therapy in the past but states that she “had to have so much electricity, they gave up on me.”

Impression. Ms. V exhibits multiple symptoms associated with GABA excess. Dopaminergic medications such as methylphenidate or amphetamines may be helpful, as they suppress GABA. GABAergic medications and supplements should be avoided in such a patient. Noradrenergic medications including antidepressants with corresponding activity or vasopressors may be beneficial. Suppression of glutamate increases GABA, which is why ketamine in any formulation should be avoided in a patient such as Ms. V.

GABA deficiency (Table 1^1-4,6,9-17)

Mr. N complains of depression,^{1,3,4,6,12,16} pain all over his body, tingling in his hands and feet,^1,6,9 a constant dull headache,² and severe insomnia.^2,3,9,10 He cannot control his anxiety and, in general, has problems relaxing. In the office, he is jumpy, tremulous, and fidgety during the interview and examination.^1,3,4,6,9,12 His muscle tone is high^1,9,11 and he feels stiff.^6,9 Mr. N’s pupils are narrow^1,9; he is hyper-reflexive^1,9,11 and reports “Klonopin withdrawal seizures.”^1,6,9 He loves alcohol because “it makes me feel good” and helps with his mind, which otherwise “never stops.”^1,6,13 Mr. N is frequently anxious and very sensitive to pain, especially when he is upset. He was diagnosed with fibromyalgia by his primary care doctor, who says that irritable bowel is common in patients like him.^1,6 His anxiety disables him.^1-4,6,9-12 His sister reports that in addition to having difficulty relaxing, Mr. N is easily frustrated and sleeps poorly because he says he has racing thoughts.¹⁰ She mentions that her brother’s gambling addiction endangered his finances on several occasions^4,12,15 and he was suspected of having autism spectrum disorder.^4,12 Mr. N is frequently overwhelmed, including during your interview.^1,3,4,6 He is sensitive to light and noise^1,9 and complains of palpitations^1,3,4,6,9 and frequent shortness of breath.^1,3,4,9 He mentions his hands and feet often are cold, especially when he is anxious.^1,3,4,6,9 Not eating at regular times makes his symptoms even worse. Mr. N commonly feels depressed, but his anxiety is more bothersome.^{1,3,4,6,12,16} His ongoing complaints include difficulty concentrating and memory problems,^3,4,12,13 as well as a constant feeling of being overwhelmed.^1,3,4,6 His restless leg syndrome requires ongoing treatment.^1,9,14 Though uncommon, Mr. N has episodes of slowing and weakness, which are associated with growth hormone problems.¹⁶ In the past, he experienced gut motility dysregulation^9,10 and prolonged bleeding that worried his doctors.¹⁷

Impression. Mr. N shows multiple symptoms associated with GABA deficiency. The deficiency of GABA activity ultimately causes an increase in norepinephrine and dopamine firing; therefore, symptoms of GABA deficiency are partially aligned with symptoms of dopamine and norepinephrine excess. GABAergic medications would be most beneficial for such patients. Anticonvulsants (eg, gabapentin and pregabalin) are preferable. Acamprostate may be considered. For long-term use, benzodiapines are as problematic as opioids and should be avoided, if possible. The use of opioids in such patients is especially counter­productive. Some supplements and vitamins may enhance GABA activity. Avoiding bupropion and stimulants would be wise. Ketamine in any formulation would be a good choice in this scenario. Sedating antipsychotic medications have a promise for patients such as Mr. N. The muscle relaxant baclofen frequently helps with these patients’ pain, anxiety, and sleep.

Continue to: Glutamate excess

Mr. B is anxious and bites his fingernails and cheek while you interview him.¹⁸ He has scars on his lower arms that were caused by years of picking his skin.¹⁸ He complains of headache^28-30 and deep muscle, whole body,^19-23 and abdominal pain.²⁰ Both hyperesthesia (he calls it “fibromyalgia”)^9,19,20,22 and irritable bowel syndrome flare up if he eats Chinese food that contains monosodium glutamate.²¹ This also increases nausea, vomiting, and hypertensive episodes.^{9,19,20,22,24,26} Mr. B developed and received treatment for opioid use disorder after being prescribed morphine for the treatment of fibromyalgia.²² He is being treated for posttraumatic stress disorder at the VA hospital and is bitter that his flashbacks are not controlled.²³ Once, he experienced a frank psychosis.²⁶ He commonly experiences dissociative symptoms and suicidality.^23,26 The sensations of crawling skin,¹⁸ panic attacks, and nightmares complicate his life.²³ Mr. B is angry that his “incompetent” psychiatrist stopped his diazepam and that it “almost killed him” by causing delirium.²⁴ He suffers from severe neuropathic pain in his feet and says that his pain, depression, and anxiety respond especially well to ketamine treatment.^9,23,26 He is prone to euphoria and has had several manic episodes.²⁶ In childhood, his parents brought him to a psychiatrist to address episodes of head-banging and self-hitting.¹⁸ Mr. B developed seizures; presently, they are controlled, but he remains chronically dizzy.^9,24,25,27 He claims that his headaches and migraines respond only to methadone and that sumatriptan makes them worse, especially in prolonged treatment.^28-30 He is tachycardic, tremulous, and makes you feel deeply uneasy.^9,24

Impression. Mr. B has many symptoms of glutamate hyperactivity. The use of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists such as memantine and dextromethorphan and alpha-blockers (eg, clonidine and tizanidine) may be considered. Avoiding addictive substances would be prudent, though the use of ketamine seems rational. Anticonvulsants are recommended, along with sedating antidepressants. Serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors may not be the best choice because norepinephrine potentiates glutamate function. Dopamine inhibits glutamate, so stimulants, bupropion, and amantadine³¹ may be paradoxically applied to treatment of both cognitive and physical symptoms (including pain) in a patient with glutamate hyperactivity.

Glutamate deficiency (Table 2^9,32-38)

Mr. Z feels dull, fatigued, and unhappy.^32,33,37 He is overweight and moves slowly. Sometimes he is so slow and clumsy that he seems obtunded.^9,36,37 He states that his peripheral neuropathy does not cause him pain, though his neurodiagnostic results are unfavorable.³² Mr. Z’s overall pain threshold is high, and he is unhappy with people who complain about pain because “who cares?”³² His memory and concentration were never good.^33,37,38 He suffers from insomnia and is frequently miserable and disheartened.^32,33,38 People view him as melancholic.^33,37 Mr. Z is mildly depressed, but he experiences aggressive outbursts^37,38 and bouts of anxiety,^32,33,36,38 psychosis, and mania.^33,37,38 He is visibly confused³⁷ and says it is easy for him to get disoriented and lost.^37,38 His medical history includes long-term constipation and several episodes of ileus.^9,34,35 His childhood-onset seizures are controlled presently.³³ He complains of frequent bouts of dizziness and headache.^32,34,35 On physical exam, Mr. Z has dry mouth, hypotension, diminished deep tendon reflexes, and bradycardia.^9,34,35 He sought a consultation from an ophthalmologist to evaluate an eye movement problem.^33,36 No cause was found, but the ophthalmologist thought this problem might have the same underlying mechanism as his dysarthria.³³ Mr. Z’s balance is bothersome, but his podiatrist was unable to help him to correct his abnormal gait.^33-36 A friend who came with Mr. Z mentioned she had noticed personality changes in him over the last several months.³⁷

Impression. Mr. Z exhibits multiple signs of low glutamatergic function. Amino acid taurine has been shown in rodents to increase brain levels of both GABA and glutamate. Glutamate is metabolized into GABA, so low glutamate and low GABA symptoms overlap. Glutamine, which is present in meat, fish, eggs, dairy, wheat, and some vegetables, is converted in the body into glutamate and may be considered for a patient with low glutamate function. The medication approach to such a patient would be similar to the treatment of a low GABA patient and includes glutamate-enhancing magnesium and dextromethorphan.

Rarely is just 1 neurotransmitter involved

Most real-world patients have mixed presentations with more than 1 neurotransmitter implicated in the pathology of their symptoms. A clinician’s ability to dissect the clinical picture and select an appropriate treatment must be based on history and observed behavior because no lab results or reliable tests are presently available.

Continue to: The most studied...

The most studied neurotransmitter in depression and anxiety is serotonin, and for many years psychiatrists have paid too much attention to it. Similarly, pain physicians have been overly focused on the opioid system. Excessive attention to these neurochemicals has overshadowed multiple other (no less impactful) neuro­transmitters. Dopamine is frequently not attended to by many physicians who treat chronic pain. Psychiatrists also may overlook underlying endorphin or glutamate dysfunction in patients with psychiatric illness.

Nonpharmacologic approaches can affect neurotransmitters

With all the emphasis on pharmacologic treatments, it is important to remember that nonpharmacologic modalities such as exercise, diet, hydrotherapy, acupuncture, and psychotherapy can help normalize neurotransmitter function in the brain and ultimately help patients with chronic conditions. Careful use of nutritional supplements and vitamins may also be beneficial.

A hypothesis for future research

Multiple peripheral and central mechanisms define various chronic pain and psychiatric symptoms and disorders, including depression, anxiety, and fibromyalgia. The variety of mechanisms of pathologic mood and pain perception may be expressed to a different extent and in countless combinations in individual patients. This, in part, explains the variable responses to the same treatment observed in similar patients, or even in the same patient.

Clinicians should always remember that depression and anxiety as well as chronic pain (including fibromyalgia and chronic headache) are not a representation of a single condition but are the result of an assembly of different syndromes; therefore, 1 treatment does not fit all patients. Pain is ultimately recognized and comprehended centrally, making it very much a neuropsychiatric field. The optimal treatment for 2 patients with similar pain or psychiatric symptoms may be drastically different due to different underlying mechanisms that can be distinguished by looking at the symptoms other than “pain” or “depression.”

Remembering that every neurotransmitter deficiency or excess has an identifiable clinical correlation is important. Basing a treatment approach on a specific clinical presentation in a particular depressed or chronic pain patient would assure a more successful and reliable outcome.

Continue to: This 3-part series...

This 3-part series was designed to bring attention to a notion that diagnosis and treatment of diverse conditions such as “depression,” “anxiety,” or “chronic pain” should be based on clinically identifiable symptoms that may suggest specific neurotransmitter(s) involved in a specific type of each of these conditions. However, there are no well-recognized, well-established, reliable, or validated syndromes described in this series. The collection of symptoms associated with the various neuro­transmitters described in this series is not complete. We have assembled what is described in the literature as a suggestion for future research.

Bottom Line

Both high and low levels of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA) and glutamate may be associated with certain psychiatric and medical symptoms and disorders. An astute clinician may judge which neurotransmitter is dysfunctional based on the patient’s presentation, and tailor treatment accordingly.

Related Resources

• Arbuck DM, Salmerón JM, Mueller R. Neurotransmitter-based diagnosis and treatment: a hypothesis (part 1). Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(5):30-36. doi:10.12788/cp.0242
• Arbuck DM, Salmerón JM, Mueller R. Neurotransmitter-based diagnosis and treatment: a hypothesis (part 2). Current Psychiatry. 2022;21(6):28-33. doi:10.12788/cp.0253

Drug Brand Names

Acamprostate • Campral
Amantadine • Gocovri
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Clonidine • Catapres
Diazepam • Valium
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Ketamine • Ketalar
Memantine • Namenda
Methylphenidate • Concerta
Morphine • Kadian
Pregabalin • Lyrica
Sumatriptan • Imitrex
Tizanidine • Zanaflex

Schizophrenia is arguably the most serious psychiatric brain syndrome. It disables teens and young adults and robs them of their potential and life dreams. It is widely regarded as a hopeless illness.

But it does not have to be. The reason most patients with schizophrenia do not return to their baseline is because obsolete clinical management approaches, a carryover from the last century, continue to be used.

Approximately 20 years ago, psychiatric researchers made a major discovery: psychosis is a neurotoxic state, and each psychotic episode is associated with significant brain damage in both gray and white matter.¹ Based on that discovery, a more rational management of schizophrenia has emerged, focused on protecting patients from experiencing psychotic recurrence after the first-episode psychosis (FEP). In the past century, this strategy did not exist because psychiatrists were in a state of scientific ignorance, completely unaware that the malignant component of schizophrenia that leads to disability is psychotic relapses, the primary cause of which is very poor medication adherence after hospital discharge following the FEP.

Based on the emerging scientific evidence, here are 3 essential principles to halt the deterioration and bend the curve of outcomes in schizophrenia:

1. Minimize the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP)

Numerous studies have shown that the longer the DUP, the worse the outcome in schizophrenia.^2,3 It is therefore vital to shorten the DUP spanning the emergence of psychotic symptoms at home, prior to the first hospital admission.⁴ The DUP is often prolonged from weeks to months by a combination of anosognosia by the patient, who fails to recognize how pathological their hallucinations and delusions are, plus the stigma of mental illness, which leads parents to delay bringing their son or daughter for psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

Another reason for a prolonged DUP is the legal system’s governing of the initiation of antipsychotic medications for an acutely psychotic patient who does not believe he/she is sick, and who adamantly refuses to receive medications. Laws passed decades ago have not kept up with scientific advances about brain damage during the DUP. Instead of delegating the rapid administration of an antipsychotic medication to the psychiatric physician who evaluated and diagnosed a patient with acute psychosis, the legal system further prolongs the DUP by requiring the psychiatrist to go to court and have a judge order the administration of antipsychotic medications. Such a legal requirement that delays urgently needed treatment has never been imposed on neurologists when administering medication to an obtunded stroke patient. Yet psychosis damages brain tissue and must be treated as urgently as stroke.⁵

Perhaps the most common reason for a long DUP is the recurrent relapses of psychosis, almost always caused by the high nonadherence rate among patients with schizophrenia due to multiple factors related to the illness itself.⁶ Ensuring uninterrupted delivery of an antipsychotic to a patient’s brain is as important to maintaining remission in schizophrenia as uninterrupted insulin treatment is for an individual with diabetes. The only way to guarantee ongoing daily pharmacotherapy in schizophrenia and avoid a longer DUP and more brain damage is to use long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of antipsychotic medications, which are infrequently used despite making eminent sense to protect patients from the tragic consequences of psychotic relapse.⁷

Continue to: Start very early use of LAIs

2. Start very early use of LAIs

There is no doubt that switching from an oral to an LAI antipsychotic immediately after hospital discharge for the FEP is the single most important medical decision psychiatrists can make for patients with schizophrenia.⁸ This is because disability in schizophrenia begins after the second episode, not the first.^9-11 Therefore, psychiatrists must behave like cardiologists,¹² who strive to prevent a second destructive myocardial infarction. Regrettably, 99.9% of psychiatric practitioners never start an LAI after the FEP, and usually wait until the patient experiences multiple relapses, after extensive gray matter atrophy and white matter disintegration have occurred due to the neuro­inflammation and oxidative stress (free radicals) that occur with every psychotic episode.^13,14 This clearly does not make clinical sense, but remains the standard current practice.

In oncology, chemotherapy is far more effective in Stage 1 cancer, immediately after the diagnosis is made, rather than in Stage 4, when the prognosis is very poor. Similarly, LAIs are best used in Stage 1 schizophrenia, which is the first episode (schizophrenia researchers now regard the illness as having stages).¹⁵ Unfortunately, it is now rare for patients with schizophrenia to be switched to LAI pharmacotherapy right after recovery from the FEP. Instead, LAIs are more commonly used in Stage 3 or Stage 4, when the brains of patients with chronic schizophrenia have been already structurally damaged, and functional disability had set in. Bending the cure of outcome in schizophrenia is only possible when LAIs are used very early to prevent the second episode.

The prevention of relapse by using LAIs in FEP is truly remarkable. Subotnik et al¹⁶ reported that only 5% of FEP patients who received an LAI antipsychotic relapsed, compared to 33% of those who received an oral formulation of the same antipsychotic (a 650% difference). It is frankly inexplicable why psychiatrists do not exploit the relapse-preventing properties of LAIs at the time of discharge after the FEP, and instead continue to perpetuate the use of prescribing oral tablets to patients who are incapable of full adherence and doomed to “self-destruct.” This was the practice model in the previous century, when there was total ignorance about the brain-damaging effects of psychosis, and no sense of urgency about preventing psychotic relapses and DUP. Psychiatrists regarded LAIs as a last resort instead of a life-saving first resort.

In addition to relapse prevention,¹⁷ the benefits of second-generation LAIs include neuroprotection¹⁸ and lower all-cause mortality,¹⁹ a remarkable triad of benefits for patients with schizophrenia.²⁰

3. Implement comprehensive psychosocial treatment

Most patients with schizophrenia do not have access to the array of psychosocial treatments that have been shown to be vital for rehabilitation following the FEP, just as physical rehabilitation is indispensable after the first stroke. Studies such as RAISE,²¹ which was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, have demonstrated the value of psychosocial therapies (Table^21-23). Collaborative care with primary care physicians is also essential due to the high prevalence of metabolic disorders (obesity, diabetics, dyslipidemia, hypertension), which tend to be undertreated in patients with schizophrenia.²⁴

Finally, when patients continue to experience delusions and hallucinations despite full adherence (with LAIs), clozapine must be used. Like LAIs, clozapine is woefully under­utilized²⁵ despite having been shown to restore mental health and full recovery to many (but not all) patients written off as hopeless due to persistent and refractory psychotic symptoms.²⁶

If clinicians who treat schizophrenia implement these 3 steps in their FEP patients, they will be gratified to witness a more benign trajectory of schizophrenia, which I have personally seen. The curve can indeed be bent in favor of better outcomes. By using the 3 evidence-based steps described here, clinicians will realize that schizophrenia does not have to carry the label of “the worst disease affecting mankind,” as an editorial in a top-tier journal pessimistically stated over 3 decades ago.²⁷

Schizophrenia is arguably the most serious psychiatric brain syndrome. It disables teens and young adults and robs them of their potential and life dreams. It is widely regarded as a hopeless illness.

But it does not have to be. The reason most patients with schizophrenia do not return to their baseline is because obsolete clinical management approaches, a carryover from the last century, continue to be used.

Approximately 20 years ago, psychiatric researchers made a major discovery: psychosis is a neurotoxic state, and each psychotic episode is associated with significant brain damage in both gray and white matter.¹ Based on that discovery, a more rational management of schizophrenia has emerged, focused on protecting patients from experiencing psychotic recurrence after the first-episode psychosis (FEP). In the past century, this strategy did not exist because psychiatrists were in a state of scientific ignorance, completely unaware that the malignant component of schizophrenia that leads to disability is psychotic relapses, the primary cause of which is very poor medication adherence after hospital discharge following the FEP.

Based on the emerging scientific evidence, here are 3 essential principles to halt the deterioration and bend the curve of outcomes in schizophrenia:

1. Minimize the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP)

Numerous studies have shown that the longer the DUP, the worse the outcome in schizophrenia.^2,3 It is therefore vital to shorten the DUP spanning the emergence of psychotic symptoms at home, prior to the first hospital admission.⁴ The DUP is often prolonged from weeks to months by a combination of anosognosia by the patient, who fails to recognize how pathological their hallucinations and delusions are, plus the stigma of mental illness, which leads parents to delay bringing their son or daughter for psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

Another reason for a prolonged DUP is the legal system’s governing of the initiation of antipsychotic medications for an acutely psychotic patient who does not believe he/she is sick, and who adamantly refuses to receive medications. Laws passed decades ago have not kept up with scientific advances about brain damage during the DUP. Instead of delegating the rapid administration of an antipsychotic medication to the psychiatric physician who evaluated and diagnosed a patient with acute psychosis, the legal system further prolongs the DUP by requiring the psychiatrist to go to court and have a judge order the administration of antipsychotic medications. Such a legal requirement that delays urgently needed treatment has never been imposed on neurologists when administering medication to an obtunded stroke patient. Yet psychosis damages brain tissue and must be treated as urgently as stroke.⁵

Perhaps the most common reason for a long DUP is the recurrent relapses of psychosis, almost always caused by the high nonadherence rate among patients with schizophrenia due to multiple factors related to the illness itself.⁶ Ensuring uninterrupted delivery of an antipsychotic to a patient’s brain is as important to maintaining remission in schizophrenia as uninterrupted insulin treatment is for an individual with diabetes. The only way to guarantee ongoing daily pharmacotherapy in schizophrenia and avoid a longer DUP and more brain damage is to use long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of antipsychotic medications, which are infrequently used despite making eminent sense to protect patients from the tragic consequences of psychotic relapse.⁷

Continue to: Start very early use of LAIs

2. Start very early use of LAIs

There is no doubt that switching from an oral to an LAI antipsychotic immediately after hospital discharge for the FEP is the single most important medical decision psychiatrists can make for patients with schizophrenia.⁸ This is because disability in schizophrenia begins after the second episode, not the first.^9-11 Therefore, psychiatrists must behave like cardiologists,¹² who strive to prevent a second destructive myocardial infarction. Regrettably, 99.9% of psychiatric practitioners never start an LAI after the FEP, and usually wait until the patient experiences multiple relapses, after extensive gray matter atrophy and white matter disintegration have occurred due to the neuro­inflammation and oxidative stress (free radicals) that occur with every psychotic episode.^13,14 This clearly does not make clinical sense, but remains the standard current practice.

In oncology, chemotherapy is far more effective in Stage 1 cancer, immediately after the diagnosis is made, rather than in Stage 4, when the prognosis is very poor. Similarly, LAIs are best used in Stage 1 schizophrenia, which is the first episode (schizophrenia researchers now regard the illness as having stages).¹⁵ Unfortunately, it is now rare for patients with schizophrenia to be switched to LAI pharmacotherapy right after recovery from the FEP. Instead, LAIs are more commonly used in Stage 3 or Stage 4, when the brains of patients with chronic schizophrenia have been already structurally damaged, and functional disability had set in. Bending the cure of outcome in schizophrenia is only possible when LAIs are used very early to prevent the second episode.

The prevention of relapse by using LAIs in FEP is truly remarkable. Subotnik et al¹⁶ reported that only 5% of FEP patients who received an LAI antipsychotic relapsed, compared to 33% of those who received an oral formulation of the same antipsychotic (a 650% difference). It is frankly inexplicable why psychiatrists do not exploit the relapse-preventing properties of LAIs at the time of discharge after the FEP, and instead continue to perpetuate the use of prescribing oral tablets to patients who are incapable of full adherence and doomed to “self-destruct.” This was the practice model in the previous century, when there was total ignorance about the brain-damaging effects of psychosis, and no sense of urgency about preventing psychotic relapses and DUP. Psychiatrists regarded LAIs as a last resort instead of a life-saving first resort.

In addition to relapse prevention,¹⁷ the benefits of second-generation LAIs include neuroprotection¹⁸ and lower all-cause mortality,¹⁹ a remarkable triad of benefits for patients with schizophrenia.²⁰

3. Implement comprehensive psychosocial treatment

Most patients with schizophrenia do not have access to the array of psychosocial treatments that have been shown to be vital for rehabilitation following the FEP, just as physical rehabilitation is indispensable after the first stroke. Studies such as RAISE,²¹ which was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, have demonstrated the value of psychosocial therapies (Table^21-23). Collaborative care with primary care physicians is also essential due to the high prevalence of metabolic disorders (obesity, diabetics, dyslipidemia, hypertension), which tend to be undertreated in patients with schizophrenia.²⁴

Finally, when patients continue to experience delusions and hallucinations despite full adherence (with LAIs), clozapine must be used. Like LAIs, clozapine is woefully under­utilized²⁵ despite having been shown to restore mental health and full recovery to many (but not all) patients written off as hopeless due to persistent and refractory psychotic symptoms.²⁶

If clinicians who treat schizophrenia implement these 3 steps in their FEP patients, they will be gratified to witness a more benign trajectory of schizophrenia, which I have personally seen. The curve can indeed be bent in favor of better outcomes. By using the 3 evidence-based steps described here, clinicians will realize that schizophrenia does not have to carry the label of “the worst disease affecting mankind,” as an editorial in a top-tier journal pessimistically stated over 3 decades ago.²⁷

Schizophrenia is arguably the most serious psychiatric brain syndrome. It disables teens and young adults and robs them of their potential and life dreams. It is widely regarded as a hopeless illness.

But it does not have to be. The reason most patients with schizophrenia do not return to their baseline is because obsolete clinical management approaches, a carryover from the last century, continue to be used.

Approximately 20 years ago, psychiatric researchers made a major discovery: psychosis is a neurotoxic state, and each psychotic episode is associated with significant brain damage in both gray and white matter.¹ Based on that discovery, a more rational management of schizophrenia has emerged, focused on protecting patients from experiencing psychotic recurrence after the first-episode psychosis (FEP). In the past century, this strategy did not exist because psychiatrists were in a state of scientific ignorance, completely unaware that the malignant component of schizophrenia that leads to disability is psychotic relapses, the primary cause of which is very poor medication adherence after hospital discharge following the FEP.

Based on the emerging scientific evidence, here are 3 essential principles to halt the deterioration and bend the curve of outcomes in schizophrenia:

1. Minimize the duration of untreated psychosis (DUP)

Numerous studies have shown that the longer the DUP, the worse the outcome in schizophrenia.^2,3 It is therefore vital to shorten the DUP spanning the emergence of psychotic symptoms at home, prior to the first hospital admission.⁴ The DUP is often prolonged from weeks to months by a combination of anosognosia by the patient, who fails to recognize how pathological their hallucinations and delusions are, plus the stigma of mental illness, which leads parents to delay bringing their son or daughter for psychiatric evaluation and treatment.

Another reason for a prolonged DUP is the legal system’s governing of the initiation of antipsychotic medications for an acutely psychotic patient who does not believe he/she is sick, and who adamantly refuses to receive medications. Laws passed decades ago have not kept up with scientific advances about brain damage during the DUP. Instead of delegating the rapid administration of an antipsychotic medication to the psychiatric physician who evaluated and diagnosed a patient with acute psychosis, the legal system further prolongs the DUP by requiring the psychiatrist to go to court and have a judge order the administration of antipsychotic medications. Such a legal requirement that delays urgently needed treatment has never been imposed on neurologists when administering medication to an obtunded stroke patient. Yet psychosis damages brain tissue and must be treated as urgently as stroke.⁵

Perhaps the most common reason for a long DUP is the recurrent relapses of psychosis, almost always caused by the high nonadherence rate among patients with schizophrenia due to multiple factors related to the illness itself.⁶ Ensuring uninterrupted delivery of an antipsychotic to a patient’s brain is as important to maintaining remission in schizophrenia as uninterrupted insulin treatment is for an individual with diabetes. The only way to guarantee ongoing daily pharmacotherapy in schizophrenia and avoid a longer DUP and more brain damage is to use long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of antipsychotic medications, which are infrequently used despite making eminent sense to protect patients from the tragic consequences of psychotic relapse.⁷

Continue to: Start very early use of LAIs

2. Start very early use of LAIs

There is no doubt that switching from an oral to an LAI antipsychotic immediately after hospital discharge for the FEP is the single most important medical decision psychiatrists can make for patients with schizophrenia.⁸ This is because disability in schizophrenia begins after the second episode, not the first.^9-11 Therefore, psychiatrists must behave like cardiologists,¹² who strive to prevent a second destructive myocardial infarction. Regrettably, 99.9% of psychiatric practitioners never start an LAI after the FEP, and usually wait until the patient experiences multiple relapses, after extensive gray matter atrophy and white matter disintegration have occurred due to the neuro­inflammation and oxidative stress (free radicals) that occur with every psychotic episode.^13,14 This clearly does not make clinical sense, but remains the standard current practice.

In oncology, chemotherapy is far more effective in Stage 1 cancer, immediately after the diagnosis is made, rather than in Stage 4, when the prognosis is very poor. Similarly, LAIs are best used in Stage 1 schizophrenia, which is the first episode (schizophrenia researchers now regard the illness as having stages).¹⁵ Unfortunately, it is now rare for patients with schizophrenia to be switched to LAI pharmacotherapy right after recovery from the FEP. Instead, LAIs are more commonly used in Stage 3 or Stage 4, when the brains of patients with chronic schizophrenia have been already structurally damaged, and functional disability had set in. Bending the cure of outcome in schizophrenia is only possible when LAIs are used very early to prevent the second episode.

The prevention of relapse by using LAIs in FEP is truly remarkable. Subotnik et al¹⁶ reported that only 5% of FEP patients who received an LAI antipsychotic relapsed, compared to 33% of those who received an oral formulation of the same antipsychotic (a 650% difference). It is frankly inexplicable why psychiatrists do not exploit the relapse-preventing properties of LAIs at the time of discharge after the FEP, and instead continue to perpetuate the use of prescribing oral tablets to patients who are incapable of full adherence and doomed to “self-destruct.” This was the practice model in the previous century, when there was total ignorance about the brain-damaging effects of psychosis, and no sense of urgency about preventing psychotic relapses and DUP. Psychiatrists regarded LAIs as a last resort instead of a life-saving first resort.

In addition to relapse prevention,¹⁷ the benefits of second-generation LAIs include neuroprotection¹⁸ and lower all-cause mortality,¹⁹ a remarkable triad of benefits for patients with schizophrenia.²⁰

3. Implement comprehensive psychosocial treatment

Most patients with schizophrenia do not have access to the array of psychosocial treatments that have been shown to be vital for rehabilitation following the FEP, just as physical rehabilitation is indispensable after the first stroke. Studies such as RAISE,²¹ which was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health, have demonstrated the value of psychosocial therapies (Table^21-23). Collaborative care with primary care physicians is also essential due to the high prevalence of metabolic disorders (obesity, diabetics, dyslipidemia, hypertension), which tend to be undertreated in patients with schizophrenia.²⁴

Finally, when patients continue to experience delusions and hallucinations despite full adherence (with LAIs), clozapine must be used. Like LAIs, clozapine is woefully under­utilized²⁵ despite having been shown to restore mental health and full recovery to many (but not all) patients written off as hopeless due to persistent and refractory psychotic symptoms.²⁶

If clinicians who treat schizophrenia implement these 3 steps in their FEP patients, they will be gratified to witness a more benign trajectory of schizophrenia, which I have personally seen. The curve can indeed be bent in favor of better outcomes. By using the 3 evidence-based steps described here, clinicians will realize that schizophrenia does not have to carry the label of “the worst disease affecting mankind,” as an editorial in a top-tier journal pessimistically stated over 3 decades ago.²⁷