I had seen many new and exciting presentations of psychopathology during my intern year, yet one patient was uniquely memorable. When stable, he worked as a counselor, though for any number of reasons (eg, missing a dose of medication, smoking marijuana) his manic symptoms would emerge quickly, the disease rearing its ugly head within hours. He would become extremely hyperactive, elated, disinhibited (running naked in the streets), and grandiose (believing he was working for the president). He would be escorted to our psychiatric emergency department (ED) by police, who would have to resort to handcuffing him. His symptoms were described by ED and inpatient nursing staff and residents as “disorganized,” “psychotic,” “agitated,”’ or “combative.” He would receive large doses of intramuscular (IM) haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and diphenhydramine in desperate attempts to rein in his mania. Frustratingly—and paradoxically— this would make him more confused, disoriented, restless, and hyperactive, and often led to the need for restraints.

This behavior persisted for days until an attending I was working with assessed him. The attending observed that the patient did not know his current location, day of the week or month, or how he ended up in the hospital. He observed this patient intermittently staring, making abnormal repetitive movements with his arms and hands, occasionally freezing, making impulsive movements, and becoming combative without provocation. His heart rate and temperature were elevated; he was diaphoretic, especially after receiving parenteral antipsychotics. The attending, a pupil of Max Fink, made the diagnosis: delirious mania, a form of catatonia.^1,2 Resolution was quick and complete after 6 bilateral electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) sessions.

Catatonia, a neuropsychiatric phenomenon characterized by abnormal speech, movement, and affect, has undergone numerous paradigm shifts since it was recognized by Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum in 1874.³ Shortly after Kahlbaum, Emil Kraepelin held the belief that catatonia was a subtype of dementia praecox, or what is now known as schizophrenia.⁴ Due to this, patients were likely receiving less-than-optimal treatments, because their catatonia was being diagnosed as acute psychosis. Finally, in DSM-5, catatonia was unshackled from the constraints of schizophrenia and is now an entity of its own.⁵ However, catatonia is often met with incertitude (despite being present in up to 15% of inpatients),¹ with its treatment typically delayed or not even pursued. This is amplified because many forms of catatonia are often misdiagnosed as disorders that are more common or better understood.

Potential catatonia presentations

Delirious mania. Patients with delirious mania typically present with acute delirium, severe paranoia, hyperactivity, and visual/auditory hallucinations.^2,6,7 They usually have excited catatonic signs, such as excessive movement, combativeness, impulsivity, stereotypy, and echophenomena. Unfortunately, the catatonia is overshadowed by extreme psychotic and manic symptoms, or delirium (for which an underlying medical cause is usually not found). As was the case for the patient I described earlier, large doses of IM antipsychotics usually are administered, which can cause neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) or precipitate seizures.⁸

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. NMS is marked by fever, elevated blood pressure and heart rate, lead-pipe rigidity, parkinsonian features, altered mental status, and lab abnormalities (elevated liver enzymes or creatinine phosphokinase). This syndrome is preceded by the administration of an antipsychotic. It has features of catatonia that include mutism, negativism, and posturing.⁹ NMS is commonly interpreted as a subtype of malignant catatonia. Some argue that the diagnosis of malignant catatonia yields a more favorable outcome because it leads to more effective treatments (ie, benzodiazepines and ECT as opposed to dopamine agonists and dantrolene).¹⁰ Because NMS has much overlap with serotonin syndrome and drug-induced parkinsonism, initiation of benzodiazepines and ECT often is delayed.¹¹

Retarded catatonia. This version of catatonia usually is well recognized. The typical presentation is a patient who does not speak (mutism) or move (stupor), stares, becomes withdrawn (does not eat or drink), or maintains abnormal posturing. Retarded catatonia can be confused with a major depressive episode or hypoactive delirium.

Catatonia in autism spectrum disorder. Historically, co-occurring catatonia and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was believed to be extremely rare. However, recent retrospective studies have found that up to 17% of patients with ASD older than age 15 have catatonia.¹² Many pediatric psychiatrists fail to recognize catatonia; in 1 study, only 2 patients (of 18) were correctly identified as having catatonia.¹³ The catatonic signs may vary, but the core features include withdrawal (children may need a feeding tube), decreased communication and/or worsening psychomotor slowing, agitation, or stereotypical movements, which can manifest as worsening self-injurious behavior.^14,15

An approach to treatment

Regardless of the etiology or presentation, first-line treatment for catatonia is benzodiazepines and/or ECT. A lorazepam challenge is used for diagnostic clarification; if effective, lorazepam can be titrated until symptoms fully resolve.^16,17 Doses >20 mg have been reported as effective and well-tolerated, without the feared sedation and respiratory depression.⁶ An unsuccessful lorazepam challenge does not rule out catatonia. If benzodiazepine therapy fails or the patient requires immediate symptom relief, ECT is the most effective treatment. Many clinicians use a bilateral electrode placement with high-energy dosing and frequent sessions until the catatonia resolves.^1,18

In my experience, catatonia in all its forms remains poorly recognized, with its treatment questioned. Residents—especially those in psychiatry—must understand that catatonia can result in systemic illness or death.

I had seen many new and exciting presentations of psychopathology during my intern year, yet one patient was uniquely memorable. When stable, he worked as a counselor, though for any number of reasons (eg, missing a dose of medication, smoking marijuana) his manic symptoms would emerge quickly, the disease rearing its ugly head within hours. He would become extremely hyperactive, elated, disinhibited (running naked in the streets), and grandiose (believing he was working for the president). He would be escorted to our psychiatric emergency department (ED) by police, who would have to resort to handcuffing him. His symptoms were described by ED and inpatient nursing staff and residents as “disorganized,” “psychotic,” “agitated,”’ or “combative.” He would receive large doses of intramuscular (IM) haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and diphenhydramine in desperate attempts to rein in his mania. Frustratingly—and paradoxically— this would make him more confused, disoriented, restless, and hyperactive, and often led to the need for restraints.

This behavior persisted for days until an attending I was working with assessed him. The attending observed that the patient did not know his current location, day of the week or month, or how he ended up in the hospital. He observed this patient intermittently staring, making abnormal repetitive movements with his arms and hands, occasionally freezing, making impulsive movements, and becoming combative without provocation. His heart rate and temperature were elevated; he was diaphoretic, especially after receiving parenteral antipsychotics. The attending, a pupil of Max Fink, made the diagnosis: delirious mania, a form of catatonia.^1,2 Resolution was quick and complete after 6 bilateral electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) sessions.

Catatonia, a neuropsychiatric phenomenon characterized by abnormal speech, movement, and affect, has undergone numerous paradigm shifts since it was recognized by Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum in 1874.³ Shortly after Kahlbaum, Emil Kraepelin held the belief that catatonia was a subtype of dementia praecox, or what is now known as schizophrenia.⁴ Due to this, patients were likely receiving less-than-optimal treatments, because their catatonia was being diagnosed as acute psychosis. Finally, in DSM-5, catatonia was unshackled from the constraints of schizophrenia and is now an entity of its own.⁵ However, catatonia is often met with incertitude (despite being present in up to 15% of inpatients),¹ with its treatment typically delayed or not even pursued. This is amplified because many forms of catatonia are often misdiagnosed as disorders that are more common or better understood.

Potential catatonia presentations

Delirious mania. Patients with delirious mania typically present with acute delirium, severe paranoia, hyperactivity, and visual/auditory hallucinations.^2,6,7 They usually have excited catatonic signs, such as excessive movement, combativeness, impulsivity, stereotypy, and echophenomena. Unfortunately, the catatonia is overshadowed by extreme psychotic and manic symptoms, or delirium (for which an underlying medical cause is usually not found). As was the case for the patient I described earlier, large doses of IM antipsychotics usually are administered, which can cause neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) or precipitate seizures.⁸

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. NMS is marked by fever, elevated blood pressure and heart rate, lead-pipe rigidity, parkinsonian features, altered mental status, and lab abnormalities (elevated liver enzymes or creatinine phosphokinase). This syndrome is preceded by the administration of an antipsychotic. It has features of catatonia that include mutism, negativism, and posturing.⁹ NMS is commonly interpreted as a subtype of malignant catatonia. Some argue that the diagnosis of malignant catatonia yields a more favorable outcome because it leads to more effective treatments (ie, benzodiazepines and ECT as opposed to dopamine agonists and dantrolene).¹⁰ Because NMS has much overlap with serotonin syndrome and drug-induced parkinsonism, initiation of benzodiazepines and ECT often is delayed.¹¹

Retarded catatonia. This version of catatonia usually is well recognized. The typical presentation is a patient who does not speak (mutism) or move (stupor), stares, becomes withdrawn (does not eat or drink), or maintains abnormal posturing. Retarded catatonia can be confused with a major depressive episode or hypoactive delirium.

Catatonia in autism spectrum disorder. Historically, co-occurring catatonia and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was believed to be extremely rare. However, recent retrospective studies have found that up to 17% of patients with ASD older than age 15 have catatonia.¹² Many pediatric psychiatrists fail to recognize catatonia; in 1 study, only 2 patients (of 18) were correctly identified as having catatonia.¹³ The catatonic signs may vary, but the core features include withdrawal (children may need a feeding tube), decreased communication and/or worsening psychomotor slowing, agitation, or stereotypical movements, which can manifest as worsening self-injurious behavior.^14,15

An approach to treatment

Regardless of the etiology or presentation, first-line treatment for catatonia is benzodiazepines and/or ECT. A lorazepam challenge is used for diagnostic clarification; if effective, lorazepam can be titrated until symptoms fully resolve.^16,17 Doses >20 mg have been reported as effective and well-tolerated, without the feared sedation and respiratory depression.⁶ An unsuccessful lorazepam challenge does not rule out catatonia. If benzodiazepine therapy fails or the patient requires immediate symptom relief, ECT is the most effective treatment. Many clinicians use a bilateral electrode placement with high-energy dosing and frequent sessions until the catatonia resolves.^1,18

In my experience, catatonia in all its forms remains poorly recognized, with its treatment questioned. Residents—especially those in psychiatry—must understand that catatonia can result in systemic illness or death.

I had seen many new and exciting presentations of psychopathology during my intern year, yet one patient was uniquely memorable. When stable, he worked as a counselor, though for any number of reasons (eg, missing a dose of medication, smoking marijuana) his manic symptoms would emerge quickly, the disease rearing its ugly head within hours. He would become extremely hyperactive, elated, disinhibited (running naked in the streets), and grandiose (believing he was working for the president). He would be escorted to our psychiatric emergency department (ED) by police, who would have to resort to handcuffing him. His symptoms were described by ED and inpatient nursing staff and residents as “disorganized,” “psychotic,” “agitated,”’ or “combative.” He would receive large doses of intramuscular (IM) haloperidol, chlorpromazine, and diphenhydramine in desperate attempts to rein in his mania. Frustratingly—and paradoxically— this would make him more confused, disoriented, restless, and hyperactive, and often led to the need for restraints.

This behavior persisted for days until an attending I was working with assessed him. The attending observed that the patient did not know his current location, day of the week or month, or how he ended up in the hospital. He observed this patient intermittently staring, making abnormal repetitive movements with his arms and hands, occasionally freezing, making impulsive movements, and becoming combative without provocation. His heart rate and temperature were elevated; he was diaphoretic, especially after receiving parenteral antipsychotics. The attending, a pupil of Max Fink, made the diagnosis: delirious mania, a form of catatonia.^1,2 Resolution was quick and complete after 6 bilateral electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) sessions.

Catatonia, a neuropsychiatric phenomenon characterized by abnormal speech, movement, and affect, has undergone numerous paradigm shifts since it was recognized by Karl Ludwig Kahlbaum in 1874.³ Shortly after Kahlbaum, Emil Kraepelin held the belief that catatonia was a subtype of dementia praecox, or what is now known as schizophrenia.⁴ Due to this, patients were likely receiving less-than-optimal treatments, because their catatonia was being diagnosed as acute psychosis. Finally, in DSM-5, catatonia was unshackled from the constraints of schizophrenia and is now an entity of its own.⁵ However, catatonia is often met with incertitude (despite being present in up to 15% of inpatients),¹ with its treatment typically delayed or not even pursued. This is amplified because many forms of catatonia are often misdiagnosed as disorders that are more common or better understood.

Potential catatonia presentations

Delirious mania. Patients with delirious mania typically present with acute delirium, severe paranoia, hyperactivity, and visual/auditory hallucinations.^2,6,7 They usually have excited catatonic signs, such as excessive movement, combativeness, impulsivity, stereotypy, and echophenomena. Unfortunately, the catatonia is overshadowed by extreme psychotic and manic symptoms, or delirium (for which an underlying medical cause is usually not found). As was the case for the patient I described earlier, large doses of IM antipsychotics usually are administered, which can cause neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) or precipitate seizures.⁸

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome. NMS is marked by fever, elevated blood pressure and heart rate, lead-pipe rigidity, parkinsonian features, altered mental status, and lab abnormalities (elevated liver enzymes or creatinine phosphokinase). This syndrome is preceded by the administration of an antipsychotic. It has features of catatonia that include mutism, negativism, and posturing.⁹ NMS is commonly interpreted as a subtype of malignant catatonia. Some argue that the diagnosis of malignant catatonia yields a more favorable outcome because it leads to more effective treatments (ie, benzodiazepines and ECT as opposed to dopamine agonists and dantrolene).¹⁰ Because NMS has much overlap with serotonin syndrome and drug-induced parkinsonism, initiation of benzodiazepines and ECT often is delayed.¹¹

Retarded catatonia. This version of catatonia usually is well recognized. The typical presentation is a patient who does not speak (mutism) or move (stupor), stares, becomes withdrawn (does not eat or drink), or maintains abnormal posturing. Retarded catatonia can be confused with a major depressive episode or hypoactive delirium.

Catatonia in autism spectrum disorder. Historically, co-occurring catatonia and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) was believed to be extremely rare. However, recent retrospective studies have found that up to 17% of patients with ASD older than age 15 have catatonia.¹² Many pediatric psychiatrists fail to recognize catatonia; in 1 study, only 2 patients (of 18) were correctly identified as having catatonia.¹³ The catatonic signs may vary, but the core features include withdrawal (children may need a feeding tube), decreased communication and/or worsening psychomotor slowing, agitation, or stereotypical movements, which can manifest as worsening self-injurious behavior.^14,15

An approach to treatment

Regardless of the etiology or presentation, first-line treatment for catatonia is benzodiazepines and/or ECT. A lorazepam challenge is used for diagnostic clarification; if effective, lorazepam can be titrated until symptoms fully resolve.^16,17 Doses >20 mg have been reported as effective and well-tolerated, without the feared sedation and respiratory depression.⁶ An unsuccessful lorazepam challenge does not rule out catatonia. If benzodiazepine therapy fails or the patient requires immediate symptom relief, ECT is the most effective treatment. Many clinicians use a bilateral electrode placement with high-energy dosing and frequent sessions until the catatonia resolves.^1,18

In my experience, catatonia in all its forms remains poorly recognized, with its treatment questioned. Residents—especially those in psychiatry—must understand that catatonia can result in systemic illness or death.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an autoimmune-related inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It typically develops in the rectum and extends to involve the large intestine. Pediatric UC can have a more severe phenotype than adult disease and may affect a child's pubertal development, bone mineral density, nutrition levels, and social life. It is currently theorized that the age at diagnosis and sex of the patient do not predict disease activity.

UC disease can announce itself as mild, moderate, or severe, and the Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) endoscopic grading is used as a clinical scoring system. The most common presenting symptoms are rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and abdominal pain; among children, the presentation can vary.

Crohns disease, another IBD, must be carefully ruled out of the differential. Colonoscopy represents the first-line approach in the diagnosis of IBD. The findings that would suggest Crohns disease are sparing of the rectal mucosa, aphthous ulceration, and noncontiguous (or skip) lesions. Micronutrient and vitamin levels are usually low in Crohns disease. And although weight loss, perineal disease, fistulae, and obstruction are commonly seen in the context of Crohns disease, they are uncommon or rare in UC. Bleeding is observed much more frequently in UC. 

During UC workup, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level often serve as markers of disease activity. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) test is frequently used with suspected UC (though this measure may not correlate with disease activity). In addition, a broad metabolic panel should be performed, along with stool cultures, to rule out infection.

The goals of pediatric UC management are to maintain control of the disease, extend periods of remission, and reduce long-term damage caused by inflammation, all while potentially allowing the patient to function as normally as possible. Anti-inflammatory therapy with 5-aminosalicylic acid agents, such as sulfasalazine and mesalamine, is foundational to treatment. Acute flares of UC in the pediatric population are usually responsive to corticosteroids, but these regimens should be short-term only. Immunomodulatory agents, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and newer therapies such as monoclonal antibodies are also used during flares, but only a minority of patients will require these therapies. These are also considered treatment alternatives for patients who are steroid-dependent or steroid-refractory.

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an autoimmune-related inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It typically develops in the rectum and extends to involve the large intestine. Pediatric UC can have a more severe phenotype than adult disease and may affect a child's pubertal development, bone mineral density, nutrition levels, and social life. It is currently theorized that the age at diagnosis and sex of the patient do not predict disease activity.

UC disease can announce itself as mild, moderate, or severe, and the Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) endoscopic grading is used as a clinical scoring system. The most common presenting symptoms are rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and abdominal pain; among children, the presentation can vary.

Crohns disease, another IBD, must be carefully ruled out of the differential. Colonoscopy represents the first-line approach in the diagnosis of IBD. The findings that would suggest Crohns disease are sparing of the rectal mucosa, aphthous ulceration, and noncontiguous (or skip) lesions. Micronutrient and vitamin levels are usually low in Crohns disease. And although weight loss, perineal disease, fistulae, and obstruction are commonly seen in the context of Crohns disease, they are uncommon or rare in UC. Bleeding is observed much more frequently in UC. 

During UC workup, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level often serve as markers of disease activity. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) test is frequently used with suspected UC (though this measure may not correlate with disease activity). In addition, a broad metabolic panel should be performed, along with stool cultures, to rule out infection.

The goals of pediatric UC management are to maintain control of the disease, extend periods of remission, and reduce long-term damage caused by inflammation, all while potentially allowing the patient to function as normally as possible. Anti-inflammatory therapy with 5-aminosalicylic acid agents, such as sulfasalazine and mesalamine, is foundational to treatment. Acute flares of UC in the pediatric population are usually responsive to corticosteroids, but these regimens should be short-term only. Immunomodulatory agents, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and newer therapies such as monoclonal antibodies are also used during flares, but only a minority of patients will require these therapies. These are also considered treatment alternatives for patients who are steroid-dependent or steroid-refractory.

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is an autoimmune-related inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It typically develops in the rectum and extends to involve the large intestine. Pediatric UC can have a more severe phenotype than adult disease and may affect a child's pubertal development, bone mineral density, nutrition levels, and social life. It is currently theorized that the age at diagnosis and sex of the patient do not predict disease activity.

UC disease can announce itself as mild, moderate, or severe, and the Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index (PUCAI) endoscopic grading is used as a clinical scoring system. The most common presenting symptoms are rectal bleeding, diarrhea, and abdominal pain; among children, the presentation can vary.

Crohns disease, another IBD, must be carefully ruled out of the differential. Colonoscopy represents the first-line approach in the diagnosis of IBD. The findings that would suggest Crohns disease are sparing of the rectal mucosa, aphthous ulceration, and noncontiguous (or skip) lesions. Micronutrient and vitamin levels are usually low in Crohns disease. And although weight loss, perineal disease, fistulae, and obstruction are commonly seen in the context of Crohns disease, they are uncommon or rare in UC. Bleeding is observed much more frequently in UC. 

During UC workup, elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein level often serve as markers of disease activity. Antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA) test is frequently used with suspected UC (though this measure may not correlate with disease activity). In addition, a broad metabolic panel should be performed, along with stool cultures, to rule out infection.

The goals of pediatric UC management are to maintain control of the disease, extend periods of remission, and reduce long-term damage caused by inflammation, all while potentially allowing the patient to function as normally as possible. Anti-inflammatory therapy with 5-aminosalicylic acid agents, such as sulfasalazine and mesalamine, is foundational to treatment. Acute flares of UC in the pediatric population are usually responsive to corticosteroids, but these regimens should be short-term only. Immunomodulatory agents, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, and newer therapies such as monoclonal antibodies are also used during flares, but only a minority of patients will require these therapies. These are also considered treatment alternatives for patients who are steroid-dependent or steroid-refractory.

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, Professor, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX

Bhupinder S. Anand, MD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationships

All of the above conditions can have ophthalmic manifestations, but the majority of optic neuritis cases seen in clinical practice are either sporadic or MS related. Optic neuritis is the first demyelinating event in approximately 20% of patients with MS. It develops in approximately 40% of MS patients during the course of their disease. 

Optic neuritis is characterized by loss of vision (or loss of color vision) in the affected eye and pain on movement of the eye (painful ophthalmoplegia). Less often, patients with optic neuritis may describe phosphenes (transient flashes of light or black squares) lasting from hours to months. Phosphenes may occur before or during an optic neuritis event or even several months after recovery.

The diagnosis of optic neuritis is usually made clinically, with direct imaging of the optic nerves showing evidence of optic disc swelling with blurred margins. The real contribution of imaging in the setting of optic neuritis, however, is made by imaging of the brain, not of the optic nerves themselves. MRI of the brain provides information that can change the management of optic neuritis and yields prognostic information regarding the patient's future risk of developing MS. The most valuable predictor of the development of subsequent MS is the presence of white matter abnormalities. Between 27% and 70% of patients (in various studies) with isolated optic neuritis showed abnormal MRI brain findings, as defined by the presence of two or more white matter lesions on T2-weighted images. Patients with two or more lesions may have up to an 80% chance of meeting criteria for MS within the next 5 years. 

A gradual recovery of visual acuity with time is characteristic of optic neuritis, although permanent residual deficits in color vision and contrast and brightness sensitivity are common. The symptoms of optic neuritis will usually resolve without medical treatment, although continuing to take regular MS disease-modulating medication is usually helpful. An intravenous steroid or oral prednisone is sometimes recommended to speed recovery. A 3- to 5-day course of high-dose (1 g) IV methylprednisolone, followed by a rapid oral taper of prednisone, has been shown to provide rapid recovery of symptoms in the acute phase. However, IV steroids do little to affect the ultimate visual acuity in patients with optic neuritis.

Typically, patients begin to recover 2-4 weeks after the onset of the vision loss. The optic nerve may take up to 6-12 months to heal completely, but most patients recover as much vision as they are going to within the first few months.

For patients with optic neuritis whose brain lesions on MRI indicate a high risk of developing clinically definite MS, treatment with immunomodulators may be considered. IV immunoglobulin treatment of acute optic neuritis has been shown to have no beneficial effect. In severe cases, plasma exchange may be considered.

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ.

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme.

All of the above conditions can have ophthalmic manifestations, but the majority of optic neuritis cases seen in clinical practice are either sporadic or MS related. Optic neuritis is the first demyelinating event in approximately 20% of patients with MS. It develops in approximately 40% of MS patients during the course of their disease. 

Optic neuritis is characterized by loss of vision (or loss of color vision) in the affected eye and pain on movement of the eye (painful ophthalmoplegia). Less often, patients with optic neuritis may describe phosphenes (transient flashes of light or black squares) lasting from hours to months. Phosphenes may occur before or during an optic neuritis event or even several months after recovery.

The diagnosis of optic neuritis is usually made clinically, with direct imaging of the optic nerves showing evidence of optic disc swelling with blurred margins. The real contribution of imaging in the setting of optic neuritis, however, is made by imaging of the brain, not of the optic nerves themselves. MRI of the brain provides information that can change the management of optic neuritis and yields prognostic information regarding the patient's future risk of developing MS. The most valuable predictor of the development of subsequent MS is the presence of white matter abnormalities. Between 27% and 70% of patients (in various studies) with isolated optic neuritis showed abnormal MRI brain findings, as defined by the presence of two or more white matter lesions on T2-weighted images. Patients with two or more lesions may have up to an 80% chance of meeting criteria for MS within the next 5 years. 

A gradual recovery of visual acuity with time is characteristic of optic neuritis, although permanent residual deficits in color vision and contrast and brightness sensitivity are common. The symptoms of optic neuritis will usually resolve without medical treatment, although continuing to take regular MS disease-modulating medication is usually helpful. An intravenous steroid or oral prednisone is sometimes recommended to speed recovery. A 3- to 5-day course of high-dose (1 g) IV methylprednisolone, followed by a rapid oral taper of prednisone, has been shown to provide rapid recovery of symptoms in the acute phase. However, IV steroids do little to affect the ultimate visual acuity in patients with optic neuritis.

Typically, patients begin to recover 2-4 weeks after the onset of the vision loss. The optic nerve may take up to 6-12 months to heal completely, but most patients recover as much vision as they are going to within the first few months.

For patients with optic neuritis whose brain lesions on MRI indicate a high risk of developing clinically definite MS, treatment with immunomodulators may be considered. IV immunoglobulin treatment of acute optic neuritis has been shown to have no beneficial effect. In severe cases, plasma exchange may be considered.

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ.

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme.

All of the above conditions can have ophthalmic manifestations, but the majority of optic neuritis cases seen in clinical practice are either sporadic or MS related. Optic neuritis is the first demyelinating event in approximately 20% of patients with MS. It develops in approximately 40% of MS patients during the course of their disease. 

Optic neuritis is characterized by loss of vision (or loss of color vision) in the affected eye and pain on movement of the eye (painful ophthalmoplegia). Less often, patients with optic neuritis may describe phosphenes (transient flashes of light or black squares) lasting from hours to months. Phosphenes may occur before or during an optic neuritis event or even several months after recovery.

The diagnosis of optic neuritis is usually made clinically, with direct imaging of the optic nerves showing evidence of optic disc swelling with blurred margins. The real contribution of imaging in the setting of optic neuritis, however, is made by imaging of the brain, not of the optic nerves themselves. MRI of the brain provides information that can change the management of optic neuritis and yields prognostic information regarding the patient's future risk of developing MS. The most valuable predictor of the development of subsequent MS is the presence of white matter abnormalities. Between 27% and 70% of patients (in various studies) with isolated optic neuritis showed abnormal MRI brain findings, as defined by the presence of two or more white matter lesions on T2-weighted images. Patients with two or more lesions may have up to an 80% chance of meeting criteria for MS within the next 5 years. 

A gradual recovery of visual acuity with time is characteristic of optic neuritis, although permanent residual deficits in color vision and contrast and brightness sensitivity are common. The symptoms of optic neuritis will usually resolve without medical treatment, although continuing to take regular MS disease-modulating medication is usually helpful. An intravenous steroid or oral prednisone is sometimes recommended to speed recovery. A 3- to 5-day course of high-dose (1 g) IV methylprednisolone, followed by a rapid oral taper of prednisone, has been shown to provide rapid recovery of symptoms in the acute phase. However, IV steroids do little to affect the ultimate visual acuity in patients with optic neuritis.

Typically, patients begin to recover 2-4 weeks after the onset of the vision loss. The optic nerve may take up to 6-12 months to heal completely, but most patients recover as much vision as they are going to within the first few months.

For patients with optic neuritis whose brain lesions on MRI indicate a high risk of developing clinically definite MS, treatment with immunomodulators may be considered. IV immunoglobulin treatment of acute optic neuritis has been shown to have no beneficial effect. In severe cases, plasma exchange may be considered.

Krupa Pandey, MD, Director, Multiple Sclerosis Center, Department of Neurology & Neuroscience Institute, Hackensack University Medical Center; Neurologist, Department of Neurology, Hackensack Meridian Health, Hackensack, NJ.

Krupa Pandey, MD, has serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: Bristol-Myers Squibb; Biogen; Alexion; Genentech; Sanofi-Genzyme.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

For almost all of us, “screen time”—time spent using a device with a screen such as a smartphone, computer, television, or video game console—has become a large part of our daily lives. This is very much the case for children and adolescents. In the United States, children ages 8 to 12 years spend an average of 4 to 6 hours each day watching or using screens, and teens spend up to 9 hours.¹ Because young people are continually adopting newer forms of entertainment and technologies, new digital technologies are an ongoing source of concern for parents and clinicians alike.² Studies have suggested that excessive screen time is associated with numerous psychiatric symptoms and disorders, including poor sleep, weight gain, anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder.^3,4 However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that individuals’ self-reports of media use were rarely an accurate reflection of their actual, logged media use, and that measures of problematic media use had an even weaker association with usage logs.⁵ Therefore, it is crucial to have an accurate understanding of how children and adolescents are affected by new technologies. In this article, we discuss a recent study that investigated variations in adolescents’ mental health over time, and the association of their mental health and their use of digital technologies.

Results were mixed

Vuorre et al⁶ conducted a study to examine a possible shift in the associations between adolescents’ technology use and mental health outcomes. To investigate whether technology engagement and mental health outcomes changed over time, these researchers evaluated the impact not only of smartphones and social media, but also of television, which in the mid- to late-20th century elicited comparable levels of academic, public, and policy concern about its potential impact on child development. They analyzed data from 3 large-scale studies of adolescents living in the United States (Monitoring the Future and Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System) and the United Kingdom (Understanding Society) that included a total of 430,561 participants.

The results were mixed across types of technology and mental health outcomes. Television and social media were found to have a direct correlation with conduct problems and emotional problems. Suicidal ideation and behavior were associated with digital device use; however, no correlation was found between depression and technology use. Regarding social media use, researchers found that its association with conduct problems remained stable, decreased with depression, and increased with emotional problems. The magnitudes of the observed changes over time were small. These researchers concluded there is “little evidence for increases in the associations between adolescents’ technology engagement and mental health [problems]” and “drawing firm conclusions about changes in ... associations with mental health may be premature.”⁶

Future directions

The study by Vuorre et al⁶ has opened the door to better analysis of the association between screen use and mental health outcomes. More robust, detailed studies are required to fully understand the varying impact of technologies on the lives of children and adolescents. Collaborative efforts by technology companies and researchers can help to determine the impact of technology on young people’s mental health.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

For almost all of us, “screen time”—time spent using a device with a screen such as a smartphone, computer, television, or video game console—has become a large part of our daily lives. This is very much the case for children and adolescents. In the United States, children ages 8 to 12 years spend an average of 4 to 6 hours each day watching or using screens, and teens spend up to 9 hours.¹ Because young people are continually adopting newer forms of entertainment and technologies, new digital technologies are an ongoing source of concern for parents and clinicians alike.² Studies have suggested that excessive screen time is associated with numerous psychiatric symptoms and disorders, including poor sleep, weight gain, anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder.^3,4 However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that individuals’ self-reports of media use were rarely an accurate reflection of their actual, logged media use, and that measures of problematic media use had an even weaker association with usage logs.⁵ Therefore, it is crucial to have an accurate understanding of how children and adolescents are affected by new technologies. In this article, we discuss a recent study that investigated variations in adolescents’ mental health over time, and the association of their mental health and their use of digital technologies.

Results were mixed

Vuorre et al⁶ conducted a study to examine a possible shift in the associations between adolescents’ technology use and mental health outcomes. To investigate whether technology engagement and mental health outcomes changed over time, these researchers evaluated the impact not only of smartphones and social media, but also of television, which in the mid- to late-20th century elicited comparable levels of academic, public, and policy concern about its potential impact on child development. They analyzed data from 3 large-scale studies of adolescents living in the United States (Monitoring the Future and Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System) and the United Kingdom (Understanding Society) that included a total of 430,561 participants.

The results were mixed across types of technology and mental health outcomes. Television and social media were found to have a direct correlation with conduct problems and emotional problems. Suicidal ideation and behavior were associated with digital device use; however, no correlation was found between depression and technology use. Regarding social media use, researchers found that its association with conduct problems remained stable, decreased with depression, and increased with emotional problems. The magnitudes of the observed changes over time were small. These researchers concluded there is “little evidence for increases in the associations between adolescents’ technology engagement and mental health [problems]” and “drawing firm conclusions about changes in ... associations with mental health may be premature.”⁶

Future directions

The study by Vuorre et al⁶ has opened the door to better analysis of the association between screen use and mental health outcomes. More robust, detailed studies are required to fully understand the varying impact of technologies on the lives of children and adolescents. Collaborative efforts by technology companies and researchers can help to determine the impact of technology on young people’s mental health.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry. All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

For almost all of us, “screen time”—time spent using a device with a screen such as a smartphone, computer, television, or video game console—has become a large part of our daily lives. This is very much the case for children and adolescents. In the United States, children ages 8 to 12 years spend an average of 4 to 6 hours each day watching or using screens, and teens spend up to 9 hours.¹ Because young people are continually adopting newer forms of entertainment and technologies, new digital technologies are an ongoing source of concern for parents and clinicians alike.² Studies have suggested that excessive screen time is associated with numerous psychiatric symptoms and disorders, including poor sleep, weight gain, anxiety, depression, and attention-deficit/hyperactive disorder.^3,4 However, a recent systematic review and meta-analysis found that individuals’ self-reports of media use were rarely an accurate reflection of their actual, logged media use, and that measures of problematic media use had an even weaker association with usage logs.⁵ Therefore, it is crucial to have an accurate understanding of how children and adolescents are affected by new technologies. In this article, we discuss a recent study that investigated variations in adolescents’ mental health over time, and the association of their mental health and their use of digital technologies.

Results were mixed

Vuorre et al⁶ conducted a study to examine a possible shift in the associations between adolescents’ technology use and mental health outcomes. To investigate whether technology engagement and mental health outcomes changed over time, these researchers evaluated the impact not only of smartphones and social media, but also of television, which in the mid- to late-20th century elicited comparable levels of academic, public, and policy concern about its potential impact on child development. They analyzed data from 3 large-scale studies of adolescents living in the United States (Monitoring the Future and Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System) and the United Kingdom (Understanding Society) that included a total of 430,561 participants.

The results were mixed across types of technology and mental health outcomes. Television and social media were found to have a direct correlation with conduct problems and emotional problems. Suicidal ideation and behavior were associated with digital device use; however, no correlation was found between depression and technology use. Regarding social media use, researchers found that its association with conduct problems remained stable, decreased with depression, and increased with emotional problems. The magnitudes of the observed changes over time were small. These researchers concluded there is “little evidence for increases in the associations between adolescents’ technology engagement and mental health [problems]” and “drawing firm conclusions about changes in ... associations with mental health may be premature.”⁶

Future directions

The study by Vuorre et al⁶ has opened the door to better analysis of the association between screen use and mental health outcomes. More robust, detailed studies are required to fully understand the varying impact of technologies on the lives of children and adolescents. Collaborative efforts by technology companies and researchers can help to determine the impact of technology on young people’s mental health.

On the basis of the patient's presentation and imaging results, the likely diagnosis is non–small cell cancer (NSCLC) of an adenocarcinoma subtype. NSCLC makes up about 80% of all lung cancer cases. Adenocarcinoma in particular is the most common type of lung cancer in the United States, accounting for about 40% of cases, and it is the most common histology among nonsmokers. Women are more likely to develop this subtype of NSCLC and are generally younger when they present with symptoms. This type of cancer arises from the bronchial mucosal glands and usually develops in a peripheral location within the lung. 

In the course of workup, immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses are used to identify tumor type and lineage (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, metastatic malignancy, or primary pleural mesothelioma). Separate IHC analyses are then used to guide treatment decisions, identifying whether ALK inhibitor therapy or programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor therapy would be appropriate.

Tissue should also be conserved for molecular testing. NCCN guidelines advise that all patients with adenocarcinoma should be tested for EGFR mutations, and DNA mutational analysis is the preferred method for assessment. Patients should also undergo routine biomarker testing, with an eye toward ALK, RET, and ROS1 rearrangements, BRAF mutations, c-MET and exon 14 skipping mutations, and PD-L1 expression levels. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, PD-L1 IHC testing is recommended.

Most cases of lung cancer are diagnosed at a late stage, when symptoms have already begun to manifest. Of note, however, women with adenocarcinoma are more likely to present with localized disease. Treatment is largely influenced by the presence of targetable mutations. Among adenocarcinoma cases, the most common mutations are in the EGFR and KRAS genes.

For patients who are EGFR mutation positive (exon 10 deletion or L858R), osimertinib is the recommended first-line therapy. For patients who are positive for the EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation, initial systemic therapy options for adenocarcinoma are appropriate; the preferred regimen being pembrolizumab-carboplatin-pemetrexed if there are no contraindications to programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or PD-L1 inhibitors.

KRAS mutations, unlike EGFR mutations, are associated with smoking. Because overlapping targetable alterations are uncommon, identification of KRAS mutations suggests that these patients will not benefit from additional molecular testing. Again, initial systemic therapy options for adenocarcinoma are appropriate, but the presence of KRAS mutation predicts a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The FDA approved a KRAS inhibitor in June 2021 and immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be beneficial in this population.

Maurie Markman, MD, President, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AstraZeneca; Novis; Glaxo Smith Kline
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Novis; GSK; Merck

On the basis of the patient's presentation and imaging results, the likely diagnosis is non–small cell cancer (NSCLC) of an adenocarcinoma subtype. NSCLC makes up about 80% of all lung cancer cases. Adenocarcinoma in particular is the most common type of lung cancer in the United States, accounting for about 40% of cases, and it is the most common histology among nonsmokers. Women are more likely to develop this subtype of NSCLC and are generally younger when they present with symptoms. This type of cancer arises from the bronchial mucosal glands and usually develops in a peripheral location within the lung. 

In the course of workup, immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses are used to identify tumor type and lineage (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, metastatic malignancy, or primary pleural mesothelioma). Separate IHC analyses are then used to guide treatment decisions, identifying whether ALK inhibitor therapy or programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor therapy would be appropriate.

Tissue should also be conserved for molecular testing. NCCN guidelines advise that all patients with adenocarcinoma should be tested for EGFR mutations, and DNA mutational analysis is the preferred method for assessment. Patients should also undergo routine biomarker testing, with an eye toward ALK, RET, and ROS1 rearrangements, BRAF mutations, c-MET and exon 14 skipping mutations, and PD-L1 expression levels. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, PD-L1 IHC testing is recommended.

Most cases of lung cancer are diagnosed at a late stage, when symptoms have already begun to manifest. Of note, however, women with adenocarcinoma are more likely to present with localized disease. Treatment is largely influenced by the presence of targetable mutations. Among adenocarcinoma cases, the most common mutations are in the EGFR and KRAS genes.

For patients who are EGFR mutation positive (exon 10 deletion or L858R), osimertinib is the recommended first-line therapy. For patients who are positive for the EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation, initial systemic therapy options for adenocarcinoma are appropriate; the preferred regimen being pembrolizumab-carboplatin-pemetrexed if there are no contraindications to programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or PD-L1 inhibitors.

KRAS mutations, unlike EGFR mutations, are associated with smoking. Because overlapping targetable alterations are uncommon, identification of KRAS mutations suggests that these patients will not benefit from additional molecular testing. Again, initial systemic therapy options for adenocarcinoma are appropriate, but the presence of KRAS mutation predicts a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The FDA approved a KRAS inhibitor in June 2021 and immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be beneficial in this population.

Maurie Markman, MD, President, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AstraZeneca; Novis; Glaxo Smith Kline
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Novis; GSK; Merck

On the basis of the patient's presentation and imaging results, the likely diagnosis is non–small cell cancer (NSCLC) of an adenocarcinoma subtype. NSCLC makes up about 80% of all lung cancer cases. Adenocarcinoma in particular is the most common type of lung cancer in the United States, accounting for about 40% of cases, and it is the most common histology among nonsmokers. Women are more likely to develop this subtype of NSCLC and are generally younger when they present with symptoms. This type of cancer arises from the bronchial mucosal glands and usually develops in a peripheral location within the lung. 

In the course of workup, immunohistochemical (IHC) analyses are used to identify tumor type and lineage (adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, metastatic malignancy, or primary pleural mesothelioma). Separate IHC analyses are then used to guide treatment decisions, identifying whether ALK inhibitor therapy or programmed cell death protein ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor therapy would be appropriate.

Tissue should also be conserved for molecular testing. NCCN guidelines advise that all patients with adenocarcinoma should be tested for EGFR mutations, and DNA mutational analysis is the preferred method for assessment. Patients should also undergo routine biomarker testing, with an eye toward ALK, RET, and ROS1 rearrangements, BRAF mutations, c-MET and exon 14 skipping mutations, and PD-L1 expression levels. For patients with metastatic NSCLC, PD-L1 IHC testing is recommended.

Most cases of lung cancer are diagnosed at a late stage, when symptoms have already begun to manifest. Of note, however, women with adenocarcinoma are more likely to present with localized disease. Treatment is largely influenced by the presence of targetable mutations. Among adenocarcinoma cases, the most common mutations are in the EGFR and KRAS genes.

For patients who are EGFR mutation positive (exon 10 deletion or L858R), osimertinib is the recommended first-line therapy. For patients who are positive for the EGFR exon 20 insertion mutation, initial systemic therapy options for adenocarcinoma are appropriate; the preferred regimen being pembrolizumab-carboplatin-pemetrexed if there are no contraindications to programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) or PD-L1 inhibitors.

KRAS mutations, unlike EGFR mutations, are associated with smoking. Because overlapping targetable alterations are uncommon, identification of KRAS mutations suggests that these patients will not benefit from additional molecular testing. Again, initial systemic therapy options for adenocarcinoma are appropriate, but the presence of KRAS mutation predicts a poor response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The FDA approved a KRAS inhibitor in June 2021 and immune checkpoint inhibitors appear to be beneficial in this population.

Maurie Markman, MD, President, Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America.

Maurie Markman, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Merck
Serve(d) as a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for: AstraZeneca; Novis; Glaxo Smith Kline
Received research grant from: AstraZeneca; Novis; GSK; Merck

Anosognosia is the lack of awareness of a disabling physical or mental illness. The term was coined by Joseph Babinski in 1914 following his observations that patients with left-side paralysis due to right hemisphere stroke do not recognize their hemiplegia and strongly deny that there is anything physically wrong with their body, or that they need treatment or rehabilitation.

Psychiatrists have long observed anosognosia in patients with acute psychoses such as schizophrenia or mania who vehemently deny that there is anything wrong with them, despite experiencing hallucinations, delusions, and/or bizarre behavior. They adamantly refuse medical care and often have to be involuntarily hospitalized to receive urgently needed medications they don’t believe they need.

So is anosognosia in schizophrenia a fixed false belief (delusion), a negative symptom, or a cognitive deficit? Arguments can be made for any of those 3 options, but the evidence suggests that anosognosia is a disorder of consciousness, a “meta-cognitive” deficit, or, as I referred to it in a previous publication, the loss of self-proprioception.¹

Anosognosia in neurologic brain disorders

Although right hemispheric stroke is the most common disease state associated with anosognosia,² other neurologic disorders can be associated with anosognosia, including Anton’s syndrome of cortical blindness,³ traumatic brain injury,⁴ Wernicke’s aphasia,⁵ mild cognitive impairment,⁶ and Alzheimer’s disease.⁷ In addition to anosognosia, those disorders can be accompanied by indifference to the deficit, which is referred to as “anosodiaphoria.”

The neuroanatomy of anosognosia generally implicates right hemisphere deficits, especially the frontal cortex, the right parietal lobe, the temporoparietal cortex, and the thalamus. It can be conceptualized as a disturbance of “body schema” because all motor and sensory functions of the body have a “representation” in brain structure.

Anosognosia in psychiatric brain disorders

Although schizophrenia is most frequently associated with anosognosia, other psychiatric disorders also exhibit this absence of insight. They include delusional disorder,⁸ bipolar disorder,⁹ intellectual disability,¹⁰ and personality disorders.¹¹ In all those psychiatric disorders, there is a lack of self-reflection (metacognition). At the neuroanatomical level, most studies have focused on schizophrenia, and abnormalities have been described in the frontal and parietal regions. Significant pathology in the inferior parietal lobe has been identified in schizophrenia.¹² However, the right insula, which is connected to multiple neural circuits,¹³ appears to be intimately associated with anosognosia when impaired. The insula also regulates interoception and a “sense of self.”¹⁴ The loss of cortical gray matter in schizophrenia is most pronounced in the insula bilaterally. Another neurologic mechanism associated with anosognosia in schizophrenia is the default mode network (DMN). The DMN, which usually is overactive at rest and is deactivated during a focused activity, is involved in both insight and social cognition.¹⁵

Measurement of anosognosia

Several rating scales are used to measure the severity of anosognosia and the loss of insight. They include:

• The Insight and Treatment Attitude Questionnaire¹⁶
• The Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder¹⁷
• The Beck Cognitive Insight Scale,¹⁸ the only self-administered scale that measures a patient’s ability to evaluate their psychiatric beliefs and possibly modify them
• The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale,¹⁹ which is the gold standard for measuring the overall severity of schizophrenia, has only 1 item related to insight within the 16-item General Subscale (G12: Lack of judgement and insight).

Continue to: Consequences of anosognosia...

Consequences of anosognosia

Patients with anosognosia neglect themselves both mentally and physically and fail to seek or accept medical attention. Thus, schizophrenia is associated with many serious and damaging consequences due to the lack of self-monitoring or appraising their health needs. The Table summarizes the multiple consequences of anosognosia.

Is anosognosia treatable or irreversible?

Schizophrenia is well established to be a heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of biotypes that share a similar phenotype of positive, negative, cognitive, mood, and neuromotor symptoms of variable severities.²⁰ This includes anosognosia, which has been reported in 57% to 98% of patients in various studies.^21,22

So what happens to anosognosia with antipsychotic therapy? In the first study that used a long-acting injectable (LAI) second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) in first-episode psychosis to ensure full adherence, Emsley et al²³ reported a 64% remission rate after 2 years of treatment, and observed that many patients regained their insight after several months of uninterrupted antipsychotic pharmacotherapy. This suggests that avoiding psychotic relapse with uninterrupted antipsychotic therapy with LAIs may help restore insight. I have personally witnessed reversal of anosognosia in patients with first-episode schizophrenia whom I treated with LAI SGAs continuously for several years; these patients not only regained insight into their illness but were able to return to college or to work.

There is also evidence that stroke patients with left-side hemiplegia, or patients with cortical blindness (due to calcarine cortex damage secondary to posterior cerebral artery infarct), who paradoxically deny being blind due to anosognosia, do regain their insight after several months. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and adherence therapy, as well as psychoeducation, can help in reversing anosognosia. Bilateral electroconvulsive therapy has been reported to improve insight in schizophrenia. Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the posterior parietal cortex has been reported to restore insight in patients with visuospatial neglect due to a stroke. However, more research targeting anosognosia along with psychotic symptoms is needed. It should be noted that patients with bipolar disorder who have anosognosia during the manic phase of their illness do have insight when they switch to a depressed phase,⁹ which suggests that anosognosia is reversible in bipolar disorder and is phase-dependent (ie, a state, not a trait, variable).
 

A symptom of impaired consciousness

A large body of evidence links lesions in the right hemisphere to delusion and to anosognosia.²⁴ Gazzaniga and Miller²⁵ published a book chapter with the provocative title “the left hemisphere does not miss the right hemisphere.” Such right-hemisphere lesions can lead to a disruption of consciousness, leading to anosognosia. Schizophrenia is a pervasive brain syndrome involving multiple brain regions and a wide range of clinical symptoms ranging across psychotic as well as negative and cognitive domains. Anosognosia can be conceptualized as a psychotic symptom (delusion), a negative symptom (self-monitoring deficit), or a cognitive failure. However, anosognosia in schizophrenia can be best understood as a symptom of impaired consciousness and self-pathology,²⁶ where the brain fails to process and recognize one’s mental function, which culminates in faulty reality testing.

Schizophrenia is a neurologic syndrome associated with numerous psychiatric manifestations, and anosognosia is one of its fundamental initial symptoms.

Anosognosia is the lack of awareness of a disabling physical or mental illness. The term was coined by Joseph Babinski in 1914 following his observations that patients with left-side paralysis due to right hemisphere stroke do not recognize their hemiplegia and strongly deny that there is anything physically wrong with their body, or that they need treatment or rehabilitation.

Psychiatrists have long observed anosognosia in patients with acute psychoses such as schizophrenia or mania who vehemently deny that there is anything wrong with them, despite experiencing hallucinations, delusions, and/or bizarre behavior. They adamantly refuse medical care and often have to be involuntarily hospitalized to receive urgently needed medications they don’t believe they need.

So is anosognosia in schizophrenia a fixed false belief (delusion), a negative symptom, or a cognitive deficit? Arguments can be made for any of those 3 options, but the evidence suggests that anosognosia is a disorder of consciousness, a “meta-cognitive” deficit, or, as I referred to it in a previous publication, the loss of self-proprioception.¹

Anosognosia in neurologic brain disorders

Although right hemispheric stroke is the most common disease state associated with anosognosia,² other neurologic disorders can be associated with anosognosia, including Anton’s syndrome of cortical blindness,³ traumatic brain injury,⁴ Wernicke’s aphasia,⁵ mild cognitive impairment,⁶ and Alzheimer’s disease.⁷ In addition to anosognosia, those disorders can be accompanied by indifference to the deficit, which is referred to as “anosodiaphoria.”

The neuroanatomy of anosognosia generally implicates right hemisphere deficits, especially the frontal cortex, the right parietal lobe, the temporoparietal cortex, and the thalamus. It can be conceptualized as a disturbance of “body schema” because all motor and sensory functions of the body have a “representation” in brain structure.

Anosognosia in psychiatric brain disorders

Although schizophrenia is most frequently associated with anosognosia, other psychiatric disorders also exhibit this absence of insight. They include delusional disorder,⁸ bipolar disorder,⁹ intellectual disability,¹⁰ and personality disorders.¹¹ In all those psychiatric disorders, there is a lack of self-reflection (metacognition). At the neuroanatomical level, most studies have focused on schizophrenia, and abnormalities have been described in the frontal and parietal regions. Significant pathology in the inferior parietal lobe has been identified in schizophrenia.¹² However, the right insula, which is connected to multiple neural circuits,¹³ appears to be intimately associated with anosognosia when impaired. The insula also regulates interoception and a “sense of self.”¹⁴ The loss of cortical gray matter in schizophrenia is most pronounced in the insula bilaterally. Another neurologic mechanism associated with anosognosia in schizophrenia is the default mode network (DMN). The DMN, which usually is overactive at rest and is deactivated during a focused activity, is involved in both insight and social cognition.¹⁵

Measurement of anosognosia

Several rating scales are used to measure the severity of anosognosia and the loss of insight. They include:

• The Insight and Treatment Attitude Questionnaire¹⁶
• The Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder¹⁷
• The Beck Cognitive Insight Scale,¹⁸ the only self-administered scale that measures a patient’s ability to evaluate their psychiatric beliefs and possibly modify them
• The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale,¹⁹ which is the gold standard for measuring the overall severity of schizophrenia, has only 1 item related to insight within the 16-item General Subscale (G12: Lack of judgement and insight).

Continue to: Consequences of anosognosia...

Consequences of anosognosia

Patients with anosognosia neglect themselves both mentally and physically and fail to seek or accept medical attention. Thus, schizophrenia is associated with many serious and damaging consequences due to the lack of self-monitoring or appraising their health needs. The Table summarizes the multiple consequences of anosognosia.

Is anosognosia treatable or irreversible?

Schizophrenia is well established to be a heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of biotypes that share a similar phenotype of positive, negative, cognitive, mood, and neuromotor symptoms of variable severities.²⁰ This includes anosognosia, which has been reported in 57% to 98% of patients in various studies.^21,22

So what happens to anosognosia with antipsychotic therapy? In the first study that used a long-acting injectable (LAI) second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) in first-episode psychosis to ensure full adherence, Emsley et al²³ reported a 64% remission rate after 2 years of treatment, and observed that many patients regained their insight after several months of uninterrupted antipsychotic pharmacotherapy. This suggests that avoiding psychotic relapse with uninterrupted antipsychotic therapy with LAIs may help restore insight. I have personally witnessed reversal of anosognosia in patients with first-episode schizophrenia whom I treated with LAI SGAs continuously for several years; these patients not only regained insight into their illness but were able to return to college or to work.

There is also evidence that stroke patients with left-side hemiplegia, or patients with cortical blindness (due to calcarine cortex damage secondary to posterior cerebral artery infarct), who paradoxically deny being blind due to anosognosia, do regain their insight after several months. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and adherence therapy, as well as psychoeducation, can help in reversing anosognosia. Bilateral electroconvulsive therapy has been reported to improve insight in schizophrenia. Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the posterior parietal cortex has been reported to restore insight in patients with visuospatial neglect due to a stroke. However, more research targeting anosognosia along with psychotic symptoms is needed. It should be noted that patients with bipolar disorder who have anosognosia during the manic phase of their illness do have insight when they switch to a depressed phase,⁹ which suggests that anosognosia is reversible in bipolar disorder and is phase-dependent (ie, a state, not a trait, variable).
 

A symptom of impaired consciousness

A large body of evidence links lesions in the right hemisphere to delusion and to anosognosia.²⁴ Gazzaniga and Miller²⁵ published a book chapter with the provocative title “the left hemisphere does not miss the right hemisphere.” Such right-hemisphere lesions can lead to a disruption of consciousness, leading to anosognosia. Schizophrenia is a pervasive brain syndrome involving multiple brain regions and a wide range of clinical symptoms ranging across psychotic as well as negative and cognitive domains. Anosognosia can be conceptualized as a psychotic symptom (delusion), a negative symptom (self-monitoring deficit), or a cognitive failure. However, anosognosia in schizophrenia can be best understood as a symptom of impaired consciousness and self-pathology,²⁶ where the brain fails to process and recognize one’s mental function, which culminates in faulty reality testing.

Schizophrenia is a neurologic syndrome associated with numerous psychiatric manifestations, and anosognosia is one of its fundamental initial symptoms.

Anosognosia is the lack of awareness of a disabling physical or mental illness. The term was coined by Joseph Babinski in 1914 following his observations that patients with left-side paralysis due to right hemisphere stroke do not recognize their hemiplegia and strongly deny that there is anything physically wrong with their body, or that they need treatment or rehabilitation.

Psychiatrists have long observed anosognosia in patients with acute psychoses such as schizophrenia or mania who vehemently deny that there is anything wrong with them, despite experiencing hallucinations, delusions, and/or bizarre behavior. They adamantly refuse medical care and often have to be involuntarily hospitalized to receive urgently needed medications they don’t believe they need.

So is anosognosia in schizophrenia a fixed false belief (delusion), a negative symptom, or a cognitive deficit? Arguments can be made for any of those 3 options, but the evidence suggests that anosognosia is a disorder of consciousness, a “meta-cognitive” deficit, or, as I referred to it in a previous publication, the loss of self-proprioception.¹

Anosognosia in neurologic brain disorders

Although right hemispheric stroke is the most common disease state associated with anosognosia,² other neurologic disorders can be associated with anosognosia, including Anton’s syndrome of cortical blindness,³ traumatic brain injury,⁴ Wernicke’s aphasia,⁵ mild cognitive impairment,⁶ and Alzheimer’s disease.⁷ In addition to anosognosia, those disorders can be accompanied by indifference to the deficit, which is referred to as “anosodiaphoria.”

The neuroanatomy of anosognosia generally implicates right hemisphere deficits, especially the frontal cortex, the right parietal lobe, the temporoparietal cortex, and the thalamus. It can be conceptualized as a disturbance of “body schema” because all motor and sensory functions of the body have a “representation” in brain structure.

Anosognosia in psychiatric brain disorders

Although schizophrenia is most frequently associated with anosognosia, other psychiatric disorders also exhibit this absence of insight. They include delusional disorder,⁸ bipolar disorder,⁹ intellectual disability,¹⁰ and personality disorders.¹¹ In all those psychiatric disorders, there is a lack of self-reflection (metacognition). At the neuroanatomical level, most studies have focused on schizophrenia, and abnormalities have been described in the frontal and parietal regions. Significant pathology in the inferior parietal lobe has been identified in schizophrenia.¹² However, the right insula, which is connected to multiple neural circuits,¹³ appears to be intimately associated with anosognosia when impaired. The insula also regulates interoception and a “sense of self.”¹⁴ The loss of cortical gray matter in schizophrenia is most pronounced in the insula bilaterally. Another neurologic mechanism associated with anosognosia in schizophrenia is the default mode network (DMN). The DMN, which usually is overactive at rest and is deactivated during a focused activity, is involved in both insight and social cognition.¹⁵

Measurement of anosognosia

Several rating scales are used to measure the severity of anosognosia and the loss of insight. They include:

• The Insight and Treatment Attitude Questionnaire¹⁶
• The Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder¹⁷
• The Beck Cognitive Insight Scale,¹⁸ the only self-administered scale that measures a patient’s ability to evaluate their psychiatric beliefs and possibly modify them
• The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale,¹⁹ which is the gold standard for measuring the overall severity of schizophrenia, has only 1 item related to insight within the 16-item General Subscale (G12: Lack of judgement and insight).

Continue to: Consequences of anosognosia...

Consequences of anosognosia

Patients with anosognosia neglect themselves both mentally and physically and fail to seek or accept medical attention. Thus, schizophrenia is associated with many serious and damaging consequences due to the lack of self-monitoring or appraising their health needs. The Table summarizes the multiple consequences of anosognosia.

Is anosognosia treatable or irreversible?

Schizophrenia is well established to be a heterogeneous syndrome with hundreds of biotypes that share a similar phenotype of positive, negative, cognitive, mood, and neuromotor symptoms of variable severities.²⁰ This includes anosognosia, which has been reported in 57% to 98% of patients in various studies.^21,22

So what happens to anosognosia with antipsychotic therapy? In the first study that used a long-acting injectable (LAI) second-generation antipsychotic (SGA) in first-episode psychosis to ensure full adherence, Emsley et al²³ reported a 64% remission rate after 2 years of treatment, and observed that many patients regained their insight after several months of uninterrupted antipsychotic pharmacotherapy. This suggests that avoiding psychotic relapse with uninterrupted antipsychotic therapy with LAIs may help restore insight. I have personally witnessed reversal of anosognosia in patients with first-episode schizophrenia whom I treated with LAI SGAs continuously for several years; these patients not only regained insight into their illness but were able to return to college or to work.

There is also evidence that stroke patients with left-side hemiplegia, or patients with cortical blindness (due to calcarine cortex damage secondary to posterior cerebral artery infarct), who paradoxically deny being blind due to anosognosia, do regain their insight after several months. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and adherence therapy, as well as psychoeducation, can help in reversing anosognosia. Bilateral electroconvulsive therapy has been reported to improve insight in schizophrenia. Transcranial magnetic stimulation over the posterior parietal cortex has been reported to restore insight in patients with visuospatial neglect due to a stroke. However, more research targeting anosognosia along with psychotic symptoms is needed. It should be noted that patients with bipolar disorder who have anosognosia during the manic phase of their illness do have insight when they switch to a depressed phase,⁹ which suggests that anosognosia is reversible in bipolar disorder and is phase-dependent (ie, a state, not a trait, variable).
 

A symptom of impaired consciousness

A large body of evidence links lesions in the right hemisphere to delusion and to anosognosia.²⁴ Gazzaniga and Miller²⁵ published a book chapter with the provocative title “the left hemisphere does not miss the right hemisphere.” Such right-hemisphere lesions can lead to a disruption of consciousness, leading to anosognosia. Schizophrenia is a pervasive brain syndrome involving multiple brain regions and a wide range of clinical symptoms ranging across psychotic as well as negative and cognitive domains. Anosognosia can be conceptualized as a psychotic symptom (delusion), a negative symptom (self-monitoring deficit), or a cognitive failure. However, anosognosia in schizophrenia can be best understood as a symptom of impaired consciousness and self-pathology,²⁶ where the brain fails to process and recognize one’s mental function, which culminates in faulty reality testing.

Schizophrenia is a neurologic syndrome associated with numerous psychiatric manifestations, and anosognosia is one of its fundamental initial symptoms.

Long-term exposure to formaldehyde on the job is linked to cognitive impairment down the road, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of adults aged 45-70 years, researchers found a 17% higher risk for cognitive problems in those with occupational formaldehyde exposure – and higher risks for those with longer duration of exposure.

“The effect of formaldehyde on the brain has been previously shown mainly in animal experiments, but very few studies have been done on humans,” lead author Noemie Letellier, PhD, Institute for Neurosciences of Montpellier, University of Montpellier (France), said in an interview.

“Our results show that being or having been occupationally exposed to formaldehyde is associated with cognitive impairment in a relatively young population,” Dr. Letellier said.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in the journal Neurology.
 

Dose-effect relationship

The investigators assessed a representative sample of 75,322 adults in France (median age, 57.5 years; 53% women). All were part of the CONSTANCES cohort, an observational cohort with a focus on occupational and environmental factors. 

A total of 6,026 participants (8%) were exposed to formaldehyde during their careers. Their occupations included nurses, caregivers, medical technicians, workers in the textile, chemistry and metal industries, carpenters, and cleaners.

The researchers calculated lifetime formaldehyde exposure using a French job-exposure matrix created to estimate a person’s exposure to potential health hazards in different occupations.

Individuals were divided into three equal groups according to their years of exposure to formaldehyde. “Low” was considered to be 6 or fewer years of exposure, “medium” was 7-21 years, and “high” was 22 or more years.

Participants were also split into three groups according to their cumulative exposure (total lifetime formaldehyde exposure based on the probability, intensity, and frequency of exposure).
 

Prevention efforts needed

After adjusting for age, sex, education and other confounders, participants exposed to formaldehyde were at higher risk for global cognitive impairment (adjusted relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2).

Longer duration of exposure and high cumulative lifetime exposure were associated with worse cognitive impairment, “with a dose-effect relationship for exposure duration,” the researchers reported.

Those exposed to formaldehyde for 22 years or more had a 21% higher risk of global cognitive impairment and workers with the highest cumulative exposure had a 19% higher risk of cognitive impairment, compared with workers with no exposure.

Although workers with recent exposure showed higher cognitive impairment, “time may not fully attenuate formaldehyde-associated cognitive deficits, especially in highly exposed but also in moderately exposed workers,” the researchers wrote.

They caution that their findings only show an association and does not prove that exposure to formaldehyde causes cognitive impairment.

Nonetheless, Dr. Letellier encourages health care providers to “be aware of lifetime occupational exposure to target prevention efforts to the identified occupational groups.” This especially includes the care sector where the most people are exposed to formaldehyde, such as nurses, caregivers, and medical technicians.

“Despite the restrictions on the use of formaldehyde due to the better knowledge of its toxicity, especially its carcinogenic effect, formaldehyde is still widely used in many sectors. These results encourage prevention efforts to further limit worker exposure to formaldehyde,” Dr. Letellier said.
 

Relevant to health care workers

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., said in an interview that exposure to some degree of formaldehyde is found in every home and workplace, “from the floors to furniture.”

“If you have cigarette smoke in the environment, your exposure rises sharply. When limiting your exposure, it’s not only cancer that you are preventing, but also your brain health,” added Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He said the disturbances in cognitive function noted in the current study were “particularly relevant to health care workers, given the use of formaldehyde in sterilization, tissue pathology processing, and embalming.”

“Interestingly, with only past exposure, there seems to be some degree of cognitive recovery,” but it does not return to a level before any exposure when corrected for age and other factors, Dr. Lakhan said.

Some caveats should also be noted, he pointed out. The study included a French population, but regulators such as the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment have strict standards on formaldehyde use in a variety of work settings.

On the flip side, given the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been greater use of chemical disinfectants in and out the workplace, some of which contain formaldehyde, Dr. Lakhan said.

In addition, he noted the study assessed data from 1950 to 2018, so prepandemic.

“A word of advice from a brain doc: Check with your employer on the level of occupational exposure to formaldehyde, heavy metals, and other toxic substances – and cross-reference with your local environmental standards,” Dr. Lakhan concluded.

The research was supported by a grant from the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health & Safety. The investigators and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term exposure to formaldehyde on the job is linked to cognitive impairment down the road, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of adults aged 45-70 years, researchers found a 17% higher risk for cognitive problems in those with occupational formaldehyde exposure – and higher risks for those with longer duration of exposure.

“The effect of formaldehyde on the brain has been previously shown mainly in animal experiments, but very few studies have been done on humans,” lead author Noemie Letellier, PhD, Institute for Neurosciences of Montpellier, University of Montpellier (France), said in an interview.

“Our results show that being or having been occupationally exposed to formaldehyde is associated with cognitive impairment in a relatively young population,” Dr. Letellier said.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in the journal Neurology.
 

Dose-effect relationship

The investigators assessed a representative sample of 75,322 adults in France (median age, 57.5 years; 53% women). All were part of the CONSTANCES cohort, an observational cohort with a focus on occupational and environmental factors. 

A total of 6,026 participants (8%) were exposed to formaldehyde during their careers. Their occupations included nurses, caregivers, medical technicians, workers in the textile, chemistry and metal industries, carpenters, and cleaners.

The researchers calculated lifetime formaldehyde exposure using a French job-exposure matrix created to estimate a person’s exposure to potential health hazards in different occupations.

Individuals were divided into three equal groups according to their years of exposure to formaldehyde. “Low” was considered to be 6 or fewer years of exposure, “medium” was 7-21 years, and “high” was 22 or more years.

Participants were also split into three groups according to their cumulative exposure (total lifetime formaldehyde exposure based on the probability, intensity, and frequency of exposure).
 

Prevention efforts needed

After adjusting for age, sex, education and other confounders, participants exposed to formaldehyde were at higher risk for global cognitive impairment (adjusted relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2).

Longer duration of exposure and high cumulative lifetime exposure were associated with worse cognitive impairment, “with a dose-effect relationship for exposure duration,” the researchers reported.

Those exposed to formaldehyde for 22 years or more had a 21% higher risk of global cognitive impairment and workers with the highest cumulative exposure had a 19% higher risk of cognitive impairment, compared with workers with no exposure.

Although workers with recent exposure showed higher cognitive impairment, “time may not fully attenuate formaldehyde-associated cognitive deficits, especially in highly exposed but also in moderately exposed workers,” the researchers wrote.

They caution that their findings only show an association and does not prove that exposure to formaldehyde causes cognitive impairment.

Nonetheless, Dr. Letellier encourages health care providers to “be aware of lifetime occupational exposure to target prevention efforts to the identified occupational groups.” This especially includes the care sector where the most people are exposed to formaldehyde, such as nurses, caregivers, and medical technicians.

“Despite the restrictions on the use of formaldehyde due to the better knowledge of its toxicity, especially its carcinogenic effect, formaldehyde is still widely used in many sectors. These results encourage prevention efforts to further limit worker exposure to formaldehyde,” Dr. Letellier said.
 

Relevant to health care workers

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., said in an interview that exposure to some degree of formaldehyde is found in every home and workplace, “from the floors to furniture.”

“If you have cigarette smoke in the environment, your exposure rises sharply. When limiting your exposure, it’s not only cancer that you are preventing, but also your brain health,” added Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He said the disturbances in cognitive function noted in the current study were “particularly relevant to health care workers, given the use of formaldehyde in sterilization, tissue pathology processing, and embalming.”

“Interestingly, with only past exposure, there seems to be some degree of cognitive recovery,” but it does not return to a level before any exposure when corrected for age and other factors, Dr. Lakhan said.

Some caveats should also be noted, he pointed out. The study included a French population, but regulators such as the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment have strict standards on formaldehyde use in a variety of work settings.

On the flip side, given the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been greater use of chemical disinfectants in and out the workplace, some of which contain formaldehyde, Dr. Lakhan said.

In addition, he noted the study assessed data from 1950 to 2018, so prepandemic.

“A word of advice from a brain doc: Check with your employer on the level of occupational exposure to formaldehyde, heavy metals, and other toxic substances – and cross-reference with your local environmental standards,” Dr. Lakhan concluded.

The research was supported by a grant from the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health & Safety. The investigators and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Long-term exposure to formaldehyde on the job is linked to cognitive impairment down the road, new research suggests.

In a large observational study of adults aged 45-70 years, researchers found a 17% higher risk for cognitive problems in those with occupational formaldehyde exposure – and higher risks for those with longer duration of exposure.

“The effect of formaldehyde on the brain has been previously shown mainly in animal experiments, but very few studies have been done on humans,” lead author Noemie Letellier, PhD, Institute for Neurosciences of Montpellier, University of Montpellier (France), said in an interview.

“Our results show that being or having been occupationally exposed to formaldehyde is associated with cognitive impairment in a relatively young population,” Dr. Letellier said.

The findings were published online Dec. 22, 2021, in the journal Neurology.
 

Dose-effect relationship

The investigators assessed a representative sample of 75,322 adults in France (median age, 57.5 years; 53% women). All were part of the CONSTANCES cohort, an observational cohort with a focus on occupational and environmental factors. 

A total of 6,026 participants (8%) were exposed to formaldehyde during their careers. Their occupations included nurses, caregivers, medical technicians, workers in the textile, chemistry and metal industries, carpenters, and cleaners.

The researchers calculated lifetime formaldehyde exposure using a French job-exposure matrix created to estimate a person’s exposure to potential health hazards in different occupations.

Individuals were divided into three equal groups according to their years of exposure to formaldehyde. “Low” was considered to be 6 or fewer years of exposure, “medium” was 7-21 years, and “high” was 22 or more years.

Participants were also split into three groups according to their cumulative exposure (total lifetime formaldehyde exposure based on the probability, intensity, and frequency of exposure).
 

Prevention efforts needed

After adjusting for age, sex, education and other confounders, participants exposed to formaldehyde were at higher risk for global cognitive impairment (adjusted relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.2).

Longer duration of exposure and high cumulative lifetime exposure were associated with worse cognitive impairment, “with a dose-effect relationship for exposure duration,” the researchers reported.

Those exposed to formaldehyde for 22 years or more had a 21% higher risk of global cognitive impairment and workers with the highest cumulative exposure had a 19% higher risk of cognitive impairment, compared with workers with no exposure.

Although workers with recent exposure showed higher cognitive impairment, “time may not fully attenuate formaldehyde-associated cognitive deficits, especially in highly exposed but also in moderately exposed workers,” the researchers wrote.

They caution that their findings only show an association and does not prove that exposure to formaldehyde causes cognitive impairment.

Nonetheless, Dr. Letellier encourages health care providers to “be aware of lifetime occupational exposure to target prevention efforts to the identified occupational groups.” This especially includes the care sector where the most people are exposed to formaldehyde, such as nurses, caregivers, and medical technicians.

“Despite the restrictions on the use of formaldehyde due to the better knowledge of its toxicity, especially its carcinogenic effect, formaldehyde is still widely used in many sectors. These results encourage prevention efforts to further limit worker exposure to formaldehyde,” Dr. Letellier said.
 

Relevant to health care workers

Commenting on the study, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, a neurologist in Newton, Mass., said in an interview that exposure to some degree of formaldehyde is found in every home and workplace, “from the floors to furniture.”

“If you have cigarette smoke in the environment, your exposure rises sharply. When limiting your exposure, it’s not only cancer that you are preventing, but also your brain health,” added Dr. Lakhan, who was not involved with the research.

He said the disturbances in cognitive function noted in the current study were “particularly relevant to health care workers, given the use of formaldehyde in sterilization, tissue pathology processing, and embalming.”

“Interestingly, with only past exposure, there seems to be some degree of cognitive recovery,” but it does not return to a level before any exposure when corrected for age and other factors, Dr. Lakhan said.

Some caveats should also be noted, he pointed out. The study included a French population, but regulators such as the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment have strict standards on formaldehyde use in a variety of work settings.

On the flip side, given the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been greater use of chemical disinfectants in and out the workplace, some of which contain formaldehyde, Dr. Lakhan said.

In addition, he noted the study assessed data from 1950 to 2018, so prepandemic.

“A word of advice from a brain doc: Check with your employer on the level of occupational exposure to formaldehyde, heavy metals, and other toxic substances – and cross-reference with your local environmental standards,” Dr. Lakhan concluded.

The research was supported by a grant from the French Agency for Food, Environmental, and Occupational Health & Safety. The investigators and Dr. Lakhan disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

The antiviral remdesivir, an intravenous drug given mostly to seriously ill COVID-19 patients in hospitals, could keep unvaccinated people who become infected out of the hospital if given on an outpatient basis, a new study says.

Researchers studied 562 unvaccinated people from September 2020 to April 2021, according to the study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study determined the risk of hospitalization or death was 87% lower in study participants who were given remdesivir than participants who received a placebo.

All participants were at high risk of developing severe COVID-19 because of their age – they were over 60 – or because they had an underlying medical condition such as diabetes or obesity.

An important caveat: The findings are based on data collected before the Delta variant surged in the summer of 2021 or the Omicron variant surged late in the year, the Washington Post reported.

The new study says the drug could be helpful in keeping vaccinated as well as unvaccinated people out of the hospital – an important factor as the Omicron surge threatens to overwhelm health systems around the world.

Remdesivir could be a boon for COVID-19 patients in parts of the world that don’t have vaccines or for patients with immunocompromised systems.

“These data provide evidence that a 3-day course of remdesivir could play a critical role in helping COVID-19 patients stay out of the hospital,” Robert L. Gottlieb, MD, PhD, the therapeutic lead for COVID-19 research at Baylor Scott & White Health in Dallas, said in a news release from Gilead Pharmaceuticals. “While our hospitals are ready to assist patients in need, prevention and early intervention are preferable to reduce the risk of disease progression and allow patients not requiring oxygen to recover from home when appropriate.”

Remdesivir was the first antiviral for COVID-19 authorized by the Food and Drug Administration. It was given to then-President Donald Trump when he was hospitalized with COVID-19 in October 2020.

Gilead released the study findings in September.

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

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is also an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is also an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

Vedolizumab does not seem to increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI), compared with anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) therapies in biologic-naive patients with ulcerative colitis (UC), despite concerns that the gut-selective monoclonal antibody treatment may increase gastrointestinal infections at a greater rate than other biologics in this patient population.

Perturbations of the gut microbiota that occur in IBD predispose patients to CDI. Given that treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab exerts an inhibitory action on lymphocyte trafficking to the intestines, questions have been raised on whether this action could increase the risk of CDI in an already vulnerable population.

In patients with UC, the incidence of CDI typically confers a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Unfortunately, CDI is a common complication associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) that can lead to disease flares, further adding to the physical and psychological burden associated with the condition, according to recent studies.

These concerns, however, may not be warranted in patients with UC, according to findings from a retrospective study presented at the annual Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases conference by Rahul Dalal, MD, a gastroenterology fellow at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

In the study, Dr. Dalal and colleagues retrospectively analyzed electronic medical records of adult patients with UC who initiated infliximab, adalimumab, or vedolizumab between June 2014 and December 2020. Patients in this retrospective cohort were followed until there was a documented occurrence of CDI, colectomy, or biologic discontinuation/switch, or until the last recorded gastroenterology encounter.

The researchers analyzed the time from biologic initiation to first CDI, which was characterized by a positive stool for C. difficile toxin or toxigenic C. difficile polymerase chain reaction with CDI-specific antibiotic prescriptions. Additionally, the investigators evaluated rates of CDI-related hospitalization, colectomy, or death within a 30-day period of CDI. The primary analysis compared patients with UC who initiated vedolizumab (n = 195) versus anti-TNF therapy (n = 610).

Compared with those treated with anti-TNF agents, patients who initiated vedolizumab were older and less frequently received systemic corticosteroids or had UC-related hospitalization within 12 months prior to starting biologics.

Over 1,436 patient-years’ worth of follow-up, the investigators observed 43 CDIs. Patients treated with vedolizumab less frequently had CDI (1.0% vs. 6.7%; P =.001) and CDI hospitalization (1.0% vs. 3.8%; P =.042), compared with those treated with anti-TNF therapies. The investigators reported no significant differences in the rates of colectomies or deaths or rates of exposure to antibiotics/corticosteroids during the follow-up period or within 30 days prior to CDI onset.

In the unadjusted Cox model, the researchers reported that vedolizumab featured a lower hazard of CDI, compared with anti-TNF (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.71). The multivariable Cox model found no significant difference in hazard of CDI for vedolizumab when compared with anti-TNF therapy (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.05-2.03) or immunomodulator exposure (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.41-2.40). The incidence of CDI prior to biologic initiation was associated with an increased hazard of subsequent CDI (HR, 5.95; 95% CI, 2.93-12.09). In the subgroup of patients who experienced a CDI, approximately 39.5% had CDI before biologic initiation at a median of 227 days preceding the subsequent event.

“Vedolizumab is one of the safest biologics that we have in the clinic,” said Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Colombel, who wasn’t involved in the study, is a gastroenterologist and serves as director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, both in New York. “Findings from this study reinforce the safety profile of vedolizumab” despite the potential concerns regarding gastroenterological infection with the agent, he added.
 

Recurrence worries

Recurrent CDI is also an issue in patients with IBD, many of whom are considered at high risk for initial and recurrent infection. During a session on CDI and recurrence at the AIBD meeting, Sahil Khanna, MBBS, of the Mayo Clinic, explained that there are three different treatment guidelines to manage initial CDI in patients with IBD.

Predominantly, these guidelines also suggest human monoclonal antibody bezlotoxumab could be used for prevention of CDI recurrence in patients at high risk of recurrence, including those who had experienced severe CDI. “One can argue that anyone with IBD who has C. difficile can be a severe CDI patient because of the bad outcomes we can see,” he explained.

“We do know that IBD is a state of chronic microbial dysbiosis compared to our patients without IBD who get C. difficile because of antibiotic exposure, and that’s why these patients have a high risk of recurrence, compared with non-IBD patients,” said Dr. Khanna. He noted that the bezlotoxumab studies showed numerically lower CDI recurrence rates compared with other treatments in patients with IBD who were initially treated with the monoclonal antibody, but this difference was not statistically significant. “But again, this agent has been shown to be safe in this patient population.”

Dr. Dalal reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets Entyvio for UC. Dr. Khanna has research grants from Rebiotix, as well as consulting fees from Shire Plc, Premier, Facile Therapeutics, and ProbioTech.

This article was updated on Jan. 3, 2022.

Real-world practice data show that less than 10% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receive early treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, despite better outcomes with earlier initiation. That said, earlier initiation of vedolizumab appears to be more common in younger patients and women, according to the study findings.

Previous research supports the early use of biologics in the management of IBD, given findings that show earlier treatment is associated with increased likelihood of response and remission compared with delayed management. In actual clinical practice, biologic agents are often delayed, potentially contributing to suboptimal outcomes and increased risks of IBD-associated adverse effects.

In a real-world study presented during the 2021 Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (AIBD) meeting by Maja Kuharic, a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers assessed administrative datasets to gauge the timing of vedolizumab utilization in adult patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC).

Data from the 2017 to 2019 MarketScan commercial and Medicare claims databases were examined in the study. Patients with continuous enrollment in the same health plan for 12 months or longer both before and after their initial IBD diagnosis were included. Additionally, the analysis included patients with 1 or more vedolizumab claim following the index IBD diagnosis.

A total of five treatment pathways were predefined for the study. First, early vedolizumab use was defined as treatment with the monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first IBD diagnostic claim. A “delayed vedolizumab 1” initiation group was defined as initial treatment with immunomodulators followed by switching to vedolizumab. Additionally, “delayed vedolizumab 2” was defined by initial utilization of corticosteroids with immunomodulators prior to vedolizumab initiation. “Delayed vedolizumab 3” was characterized by the initial use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) with corticosteroids before vedolizumab. Finally, “delayed vedolizumab 4” was defined by the use of 5-ASA with corticosteroids and immunomodulators before vedolizumab.

The real-world cohort study included 1,342 patients with UC (median age, 43 years; 51.0% male) and 964 patients with CD (median age, 45 years; 43.6% male) who received vedolizumab. Early vedolizumab initiation was observed in 6.6% of patients with UC and 9.6% of patients with CD. In the UC population, the proportions of patients classified in the delayed vedolizumab 1, 2, 3, and 4 groups were 7.5%, 14.8%, 37.6%, and 33.4%, respectively. Among the CD group, the proportions of patients in each delayed vedolizumab arms were 19.0%, 36.8%, 19.0%, and 15.6%, respectively.

In the UC cohort, patients who experienced early vedolizumab initiation had a median younger age than those in the delayed groups (40 vs. 44 years, respectively). Additionally, the proportion of men was lower in the early vedolizumab cohort (46.1% vs. 51.4%). Similar findings were observed in the CD group: those who initiated vedolizumab earlier had a lower median age (43 vs. 45 years) and were less frequently men (39.8%% vs. 43.9%).

Across both treatment indications, there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups in terms of geographic location, payer type (that is, commercial vs. Medicare), or year of diagnosis.

According to Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, a limitation of the findings is the lack of explanation as to why early initiation of vedolizumab is higher in younger patients and women. “Rather, it just reflects clinical practice in the real world with no justification,” said Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“[The findings] may look surprising since the drug, because of its safety, could be considered first-line in elderly fragile patients with higher risk of infection,” added Dr. Colombel. He noted that what is missing from the study is the longitudinal assessment of early treatment in terms of disease modification. In particular, he asked, what needs to be further explored is the “long-term impact of early vedolizumab initiation on the risk of surgery and complications.”

During another session at the AIBD 2021 meeting on the positioning of therapies in IBD, Anita Afzali, MD, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Hilliard, Ohio, noted that for newly diagnosed patients, early initiation of vedolizumab may be most appropriate for patients with unfavorable pharmacokinetics. For instance, Dr. Afzali said, vedolizumab or ustekinumab could be the biologics of choice for an older woman with ileocolonic CD and the HLA-DQA1*04 genotype in whom clinicians would want to avoid an immunomodulator.

“When you look at different factors, whether you’re discussing the drug itself or the patient, there’s different considerations” for selecting a therapy in IBD, explained Dr. Afzali. These considerations, she stated, include those related to drug efficacy and safety as well as disease and individual characteristics such as age, comorbidities, preferences, and costs.

Ms. Kuharic is a PhD candidate and is also a Health Economics and Outcomes Research Fellow at Takeda. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets vedolizumab for CD and UC. Dr. Afzali has reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, IBD Horizons, AbbVie, Takeda, and Janssen.

Real-world practice data show that less than 10% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receive early treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, despite better outcomes with earlier initiation. That said, earlier initiation of vedolizumab appears to be more common in younger patients and women, according to the study findings.

Previous research supports the early use of biologics in the management of IBD, given findings that show earlier treatment is associated with increased likelihood of response and remission compared with delayed management. In actual clinical practice, biologic agents are often delayed, potentially contributing to suboptimal outcomes and increased risks of IBD-associated adverse effects.

In a real-world study presented during the 2021 Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (AIBD) meeting by Maja Kuharic, a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers assessed administrative datasets to gauge the timing of vedolizumab utilization in adult patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC).

Data from the 2017 to 2019 MarketScan commercial and Medicare claims databases were examined in the study. Patients with continuous enrollment in the same health plan for 12 months or longer both before and after their initial IBD diagnosis were included. Additionally, the analysis included patients with 1 or more vedolizumab claim following the index IBD diagnosis.

A total of five treatment pathways were predefined for the study. First, early vedolizumab use was defined as treatment with the monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first IBD diagnostic claim. A “delayed vedolizumab 1” initiation group was defined as initial treatment with immunomodulators followed by switching to vedolizumab. Additionally, “delayed vedolizumab 2” was defined by initial utilization of corticosteroids with immunomodulators prior to vedolizumab initiation. “Delayed vedolizumab 3” was characterized by the initial use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) with corticosteroids before vedolizumab. Finally, “delayed vedolizumab 4” was defined by the use of 5-ASA with corticosteroids and immunomodulators before vedolizumab.

The real-world cohort study included 1,342 patients with UC (median age, 43 years; 51.0% male) and 964 patients with CD (median age, 45 years; 43.6% male) who received vedolizumab. Early vedolizumab initiation was observed in 6.6% of patients with UC and 9.6% of patients with CD. In the UC population, the proportions of patients classified in the delayed vedolizumab 1, 2, 3, and 4 groups were 7.5%, 14.8%, 37.6%, and 33.4%, respectively. Among the CD group, the proportions of patients in each delayed vedolizumab arms were 19.0%, 36.8%, 19.0%, and 15.6%, respectively.

In the UC cohort, patients who experienced early vedolizumab initiation had a median younger age than those in the delayed groups (40 vs. 44 years, respectively). Additionally, the proportion of men was lower in the early vedolizumab cohort (46.1% vs. 51.4%). Similar findings were observed in the CD group: those who initiated vedolizumab earlier had a lower median age (43 vs. 45 years) and were less frequently men (39.8%% vs. 43.9%).

Across both treatment indications, there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups in terms of geographic location, payer type (that is, commercial vs. Medicare), or year of diagnosis.

According to Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, a limitation of the findings is the lack of explanation as to why early initiation of vedolizumab is higher in younger patients and women. “Rather, it just reflects clinical practice in the real world with no justification,” said Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“[The findings] may look surprising since the drug, because of its safety, could be considered first-line in elderly fragile patients with higher risk of infection,” added Dr. Colombel. He noted that what is missing from the study is the longitudinal assessment of early treatment in terms of disease modification. In particular, he asked, what needs to be further explored is the “long-term impact of early vedolizumab initiation on the risk of surgery and complications.”

During another session at the AIBD 2021 meeting on the positioning of therapies in IBD, Anita Afzali, MD, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Hilliard, Ohio, noted that for newly diagnosed patients, early initiation of vedolizumab may be most appropriate for patients with unfavorable pharmacokinetics. For instance, Dr. Afzali said, vedolizumab or ustekinumab could be the biologics of choice for an older woman with ileocolonic CD and the HLA-DQA1*04 genotype in whom clinicians would want to avoid an immunomodulator.

“When you look at different factors, whether you’re discussing the drug itself or the patient, there’s different considerations” for selecting a therapy in IBD, explained Dr. Afzali. These considerations, she stated, include those related to drug efficacy and safety as well as disease and individual characteristics such as age, comorbidities, preferences, and costs.

Ms. Kuharic is a PhD candidate and is also a Health Economics and Outcomes Research Fellow at Takeda. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets vedolizumab for CD and UC. Dr. Afzali has reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, IBD Horizons, AbbVie, Takeda, and Janssen.

Real-world practice data show that less than 10% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receive early treatment with monoclonal antibody vedolizumab, despite better outcomes with earlier initiation. That said, earlier initiation of vedolizumab appears to be more common in younger patients and women, according to the study findings.

Previous research supports the early use of biologics in the management of IBD, given findings that show earlier treatment is associated with increased likelihood of response and remission compared with delayed management. In actual clinical practice, biologic agents are often delayed, potentially contributing to suboptimal outcomes and increased risks of IBD-associated adverse effects.

In a real-world study presented during the 2021 Advances in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (AIBD) meeting by Maja Kuharic, a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago, researchers assessed administrative datasets to gauge the timing of vedolizumab utilization in adult patients with Crohn’s disease (CD) or ulcerative colitis (UC).

Data from the 2017 to 2019 MarketScan commercial and Medicare claims databases were examined in the study. Patients with continuous enrollment in the same health plan for 12 months or longer both before and after their initial IBD diagnosis were included. Additionally, the analysis included patients with 1 or more vedolizumab claim following the index IBD diagnosis.

A total of five treatment pathways were predefined for the study. First, early vedolizumab use was defined as treatment with the monoclonal antibody therapy within 30 days of the first IBD diagnostic claim. A “delayed vedolizumab 1” initiation group was defined as initial treatment with immunomodulators followed by switching to vedolizumab. Additionally, “delayed vedolizumab 2” was defined by initial utilization of corticosteroids with immunomodulators prior to vedolizumab initiation. “Delayed vedolizumab 3” was characterized by the initial use of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) with corticosteroids before vedolizumab. Finally, “delayed vedolizumab 4” was defined by the use of 5-ASA with corticosteroids and immunomodulators before vedolizumab.

The real-world cohort study included 1,342 patients with UC (median age, 43 years; 51.0% male) and 964 patients with CD (median age, 45 years; 43.6% male) who received vedolizumab. Early vedolizumab initiation was observed in 6.6% of patients with UC and 9.6% of patients with CD. In the UC population, the proportions of patients classified in the delayed vedolizumab 1, 2, 3, and 4 groups were 7.5%, 14.8%, 37.6%, and 33.4%, respectively. Among the CD group, the proportions of patients in each delayed vedolizumab arms were 19.0%, 36.8%, 19.0%, and 15.6%, respectively.

In the UC cohort, patients who experienced early vedolizumab initiation had a median younger age than those in the delayed groups (40 vs. 44 years, respectively). Additionally, the proportion of men was lower in the early vedolizumab cohort (46.1% vs. 51.4%). Similar findings were observed in the CD group: those who initiated vedolizumab earlier had a lower median age (43 vs. 45 years) and were less frequently men (39.8%% vs. 43.9%).

Across both treatment indications, there were no clinically meaningful differences between treatment groups in terms of geographic location, payer type (that is, commercial vs. Medicare), or year of diagnosis.

According to Jean-Frederic Colombel, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, a limitation of the findings is the lack of explanation as to why early initiation of vedolizumab is higher in younger patients and women. “Rather, it just reflects clinical practice in the real world with no justification,” said Dr. Colombel, a gastroenterologist and director of the Feinstein IBD Center at Mount Sinai Hospital and professor of medicine (division of gastroenterology) at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“[The findings] may look surprising since the drug, because of its safety, could be considered first-line in elderly fragile patients with higher risk of infection,” added Dr. Colombel. He noted that what is missing from the study is the longitudinal assessment of early treatment in terms of disease modification. In particular, he asked, what needs to be further explored is the “long-term impact of early vedolizumab initiation on the risk of surgery and complications.”

During another session at the AIBD 2021 meeting on the positioning of therapies in IBD, Anita Afzali, MD, of the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center in Hilliard, Ohio, noted that for newly diagnosed patients, early initiation of vedolizumab may be most appropriate for patients with unfavorable pharmacokinetics. For instance, Dr. Afzali said, vedolizumab or ustekinumab could be the biologics of choice for an older woman with ileocolonic CD and the HLA-DQA1*04 genotype in whom clinicians would want to avoid an immunomodulator.

“When you look at different factors, whether you’re discussing the drug itself or the patient, there’s different considerations” for selecting a therapy in IBD, explained Dr. Afzali. These considerations, she stated, include those related to drug efficacy and safety as well as disease and individual characteristics such as age, comorbidities, preferences, and costs.

Ms. Kuharic is a PhD candidate and is also a Health Economics and Outcomes Research Fellow at Takeda. Dr. Colombel has consulted for Takeda, which markets vedolizumab for CD and UC. Dr. Afzali has reported relationships with several pharmaceutical companies, including BMS, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Pfizer, IBD Horizons, AbbVie, Takeda, and Janssen.