MDedge Psychiatry

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

Many Americans are clamoring for a booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine after reports of rising numbers of breakthrough infections, and demand increased after the Biden administration said those shots would be offered starting on Sept. 20.

That plan, which was first announced on Aug. 18, has raised eyebrows because it comes in advance of regulatory reviews by the Food and Drug Administration and recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Those reviews are needed to determine whether third doses of these vaccines are effective or even safe. The move could have important legal ramifications for doctors and patients, too.

On Aug. 31, two high-level officials in the FDA’s Office of Vaccines Research and Review abruptly resigned amid reports that they were angry that the Biden administration was making decisions that should be left up to that agency.

So far, data show that the vaccines are highly effective at preventing the most severe consequences of COVID-19 – hospitalization and death – even regarding the Delta variant. The World Health Organization has urged wealthy nations such as the United States not to offer boosters so that the limited supply of vaccines can be directed to countries with fewer resources.
 

White House supports boosters

In a recent press briefing, Jeff Zients, the White House COVID-19 response coordinator, defended the move.

“You know, the booster decision, which you referenced ... was made by and announced by the nation’s leading public health officials, including Dr. Walensky; Dr. Fauci; Surgeon General Vivek Murthy; Dr. Janet Woodcock; the FDA acting commissioner, Dr. Francis Collins; Dr. Kessler; and others,” Mr. Zients said.

“And as our medical experts laid out, having reviewed all of the available data, it is in their clinical judgment that it is time to prepare Americans for a booster shot.”

He said a target date of Sept. 20 was announced so as to give states and practitioners time to prepare. He also said the move to give boosters was meant to help the United States stay ahead of a rapidly changing virus. Mr. Zients added that whether boosters will be administered starting on Sept. 20 depends on the FDA’s and CDC’s giving the go-ahead.

“Booster doses are going to be handled the same way all vaccines are handled,” said Kristen Nordlund, a CDC spokesperson. “Companies will have to provide data to FDA. FDA will have to make a decision and authorize the use of those, and ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] will have to look at the evidence as well and make recommendations on top of FDA’s regulatory action,” she said.

Ms. Nordlund agreed that the planned Sept. 20 start date for boosters was something to which they aspired and was not necessarily set.

Historically, the FDA has needed at least 4 months to review a change to a vaccine’s approval, even on an accelerated schedule. Reviewers use that time to assess data regarding individual patients in a study, to review raw data, and essentially to check a drug company’s math and conclusions. The Biden administration’s timeline would shorten that review period from months to just a few weeks.
 

‘FDA in a very difficult position’

After the FDA approves, the ACIP of the CDC must meet to review the evidence and make recommendations on the use of the boosters in the United States.

Pfizer says it completed its submission for a supplemental biologics license application to the FDA on Aug. 27. To meet a Sept. 20 timeline, the entire process would have to be completed within 3 weeks.

“I don’t think that was handled, you know, ideally,” said Peter Lurie, MD, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and former associate commissioner of public health strategy and analysis at the FDA.

“It puts FDA in a very difficult position,” Dr. Lurie said. “It’s almost as if the decision has been made and they’re just checking a box, and that is, you know, contrary to the what FDA – at least the internal people at FDA – have been trying to do for ages.”

He said the agency took great pains with the emergency use authorizations and the full approvals of the vaccines to work as rapidly but thoroughly as possible. They did not skip steps.

“I think all of that reflected very well on the agency,” Dr. Lurie said. “And I think it worked out well in terms of trust in the vaccines.”

Although additional doses of vaccine are expected to be safe, little is known about side effects or adverse events after a third dose.

“It’s critical to wait for additional data and regulatory allowance for booster doses,” Sara Oliver, MD, a member of the CDC’s epidemic intelligence service, said in an Aug. 30 presentation to the ACIP, which is charged with making recommendations for use of all vaccines in the United States.
 

Boosters already being given

But after the White House announced that boosters were on the way, many people are not waiting.

Many health care practitioners and pharmacies have already been giving people third doses of vaccines, even if they are not among the immunocompromised – the group for which the shots are currently approved.

“You can walk into a pharmacy and ask for a third dose. Depending on which pharmacy you go to, you may get it,” said Helen Talbot, MD, associate professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and a member of the ACIP.

She says she has a friend who recently went for a checkup and was offered a third dose. His physician is already giving extra doses to everyone who is older than 65.

Dr. Talbot said that in fairness, pharmacies in the United States are throwing away doses of vaccine because they are expiring before they get used.

“Many of us may or may not be ready to give a third dose but would rather give someone a third dose than throw a vaccine away,” she said.
 

Consequences of a third shot

But giving or getting a third dose before approval by the FDA may have legal consequences.

In the ACIP meeting on Aug. 30, Demetre Daskalakis, MD, who leads vaccine equity efforts at the CDC, cautioned that physicians who give extra doses of the vaccine before the FDA and CDC have signed off may be in violation of practitioner agreements with the federal government and might not be covered by the federal PREP Act. The PREP Act provides immunity from lawsuits for people who administer COVID-19 vaccines and compensates patients in the event of injury. Patients who get a vaccine and suffer a rare but serious side effect may lose the ability to claim compensation offered by the act.

“Many of us gasped when he said that,” Dr. Talbot said, “because that’s a big deal.”

The ACIP signaled that it is considering recommending boosters for a much narrower slice of the American population than the Biden administration has suggested.

They said that so far, the data point only to the need for boosters for seniors, who are the patients most likely to experience breakthrough infections that require hospitalization, and health care workers, who are needed now more than ever and cannot work if they’re sick.

In a White House news briefing Aug. 31, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, was asked about the ACIP’s conclusions and whether she believed there were enough data to recommend booster shots for most Americans 8 months after their last dose.

“The ACIP did not review international data that actually has led us to be even more concerned about increased risk of vaccine effectiveness waning against hospitalization, severe disease, and death. They will be reviewing that as well,” she said.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

If COVID-19 has caused millions of deaths, it may also have prevented or at least led to a postponement of many births.

In an assessment of the pandemic’s early effects, Arnstein Aassve, PhD, and colleagues found a significant COVID-19–related decline in crude birth rates (CBRs) in 7 of 22 high-income countries, particularly in Southwestern Europe.

Dr. Aassve, an economist at the Carlo F. Dondena Center for Research on Social Dynamics and Public Policy at the Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi, Milan, and colleagues report the results in an article published online August 30 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Defining the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as February 2020, the study identifies strong declines in Italy (-9.1%), Hungary (-8.5%), Spain (-8.4%), and Portugal (-6.6%) beyond those predicted by past trends. In the United States, CBRs fell by 7.1% relative to 2019 for births occurring in Nov. and Dec. 2020 following conceptions in February and March of that year.

Significant declines in CBR also occurred in Belgium, Austria, and Singapore.

A year-to-year comparison of the mean for monthly CBRs per 1,000 population before and during the pandemic suggests a negative difference for all countries studied except for Denmark, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, Dr. Aassve and colleagues write. These findings may have policy implications for childcare, housing, and the labor market.

The Milan researchers compared monthly vital statistics data on live births from the international Human Fertility Database for the period of Jan. 2016 to March 2021. These figures reflect conceptions carried to term between April 2015 and June 2020. The 22 countries in the analysis represent 37% of the total reported COVID-19 cases and 34% of deaths worldwide.

The study findings align with surveys on “fertility intentions” collected early in the first COVID-19 wave in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. These surveys indicated that 73% of people who were planning pregnancies in 2020 either decided to delay the pregnancy or they abandoned their plans.

“The popular media speculated that the lockdown would lead to a baby boom, as couples spent more time together,” Dr. Aassve told this news organization. “There’s very little evidence of this when you look to previous disasters and shocks, and the first data suggest more of an immediate collapse than a boom. But as you also see from the paper, the collapse is not seen everywhere.” Other current studies suggest the fertility drop is immediate but temporary, says Dr. Aassve, who is also a professor of demography.

Interestingly, Dr. Aassve and colleagues found that CBRs were relatively stable in Northern Europe. The authors point to supportive social and family policies in that region that might have reduced the effect of the pandemic on births. “These factors are likely to affect CBRs in the subsequent pandemic waves,” they write. They call for future studies to assess the full population implications of the pandemic, the moderating impact of policy interventions, and the nexus between short- and long-run effects in relation to the various waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

Rebounds

Some regions have already reported a rebound from the COVID-19 fertility trough. Molly J. Stout, MD, director of maternal fetal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and colleagues used electronic medical records to predict a surge in births after the initial decline.

“The surge we’ve seen at the end of this summer is exceeding the usual annual birth rate, as predicted,” she said in an interview. “But I think there’ll be a return to normal after this transient escalation. I don’t think birth rates will stay elevated above the normal because the birth surge is a temporary response to an event, although there will likely be regional differences.”

Looking ahead, Dr. Stout, who was not involved in Dr. Aassve’s analysis, is not certain how a fourth pandemic wave might ultimately modify a couple’s overall family size. But the toll the health crisis has taken on working women who have been forced to withdraw from the economy because of a lack of childcare points to a societal need that should be addressed.

According to Philip N. Cohen, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, College Park, who’s been tracking fertility trends since the onset of the COVID-19 emergency, the pandemic has combined a health crisis with an economic crisis, along with “the additional factor of social distancing and isolation, which all contributed to the decline in birth rates. Some people changed their plans to hold off on having children, while others didn’t get pregnant because they weren’t socializing and meeting people as much.”

Dr. Cohen, who was not involved in the study by Dr. Aassve and associates, said his provisional data show that although in many places, birth rates have rebounded more or less to prepandemic levels after a nadir around Jan. 2021, some areas of the United States still show substantially lower rates, including California, Hawaii, and Oregon.

As to the duration of the pandemic effect, Dr. Aassve cautions that his group’s estimates refer to the first wave only. “We then have the second, third, and currently the fourth wave. We can’t be sure about the impact of these waves on fertility since the data are not there yet, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t continue to have an impact on fertility rates,” he said.

Dr. Cohen agreed: “Some people who delayed childbearing will make up the delay. However, whenever there’s a delay, there’s inevitably some portion of the decline that’s not recouped.”

As for the wider effect across the world, Dr. Aassve said his team’s figures derive from high-income countries where data are readily available. For middle- and low-income countries, fewer data exist, and the quality of those data is not as good.

The lessons from this and other upheavals teach us that unforeseen shocks almost always have a negative impact on fertility, says Dr. Aassve. “[B]ut these effects may be separate from existing declining trends. The issue here is that those overall declining trends may be driven by other factors. In contrast, the shock of the pandemic is short-lived, and we may return to normal rather quickly. But if the pandemic also impacts other societal structures, such as the occupational and industrial sectors, then the pandemic might exacerbate the negative trend.”

The study was supported by funding from the European Research Council for funding under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme. The study authors, Dr. Stout, and Dr. Cohen have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

Exercising to lose weight is not for every ‘body’

This first item comes from the “You’ve got to be kidding” section of LOTME’s supersecret topics-of-interest file.

Maya23K/Thinkstock

Investigators at the Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Roehampton noticed that some people who enrolled in exercise programs to lose weight did just the opposite: they gained weight.

Being scientists, they decided to look at the effects of energy expenditure and how those effects varied among individuals. The likely culprit in this case, they determined, is something called compensatory mechanisms. One such mechanism involves eating more food because exercise stimulates appetite, and another might reduce energy expenditure on other components like resting metabolism so that the exercise is, in effect, less costly.

A look at the numbers shows how compensatory mechanisms worked in the study population of 1,750 adults. Among individuals with the highest BMI, 51% of the calories burned during activity translated into calories burned at the end of the day. For those with normal BMI, however, 72% of calories burned during activity were reflected in total expenditure.

“People living with obesity cut back their resting metabolism when they are more active. The result is that for every calorie they spend on exercise they save about half a calorie on resting,” the investigators explained.

In other words, some bodies will, unconsciously, work against the conscious effort of exercising to lose weight. Thank you very much, compensatory mechanisms, for the boundarylessness exhibited in exceeding your job description.
 

When it comes to the mix, walnuts go nuts

When it comes to mixed nuts, walnuts get no love. But we may be able to give you a reason to not pick them out: Your arteries.

PxHere

Participants in a recent study who ate about a half-cup of walnuts every day for 2 years saw a drop in their low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. The number and quality of LDL particles in healthy older adults also improved. How? Good ol’ omega-3 fatty acids.

Omega-3 is found in many foods linked to lower risks of heart disease, lower cholesterol levels, and lower blood sugar levels, but the one thing that makes the walnut a front runner for Miss Super Food 2021 is their ability to improve the quality of LDL particles.

“LDL particles come in various sizes [and] research has shown that small, dense LDL particles are more often associated with atherosclerosis, the plaque or fatty deposits that build up in the arteries,” Emilio Ros, MD, PhD, of the Hospital Clínic of Barcelona and the study’s senior investigator, said in a written statement.

The 708 participants, aged 63-79 years and mostly women, were divided into two groups: One received the walnut diet and the other did not. After 2 years, the walnut group had lower LDL levels by an average of 4.3 mg/dL. Total cholesterol was reduced by an average of 8.5 mg/dL. Also, their total LDL particle count was 4.3% lower and small LDL particles were down by 6.1%.

So instead of picking the walnuts out of the mix, try to find it in your heart to appreciate them. Your body already does.
 

Begun, the clone war has

Well, not quite yet, Master Yoda, but perhaps one day soon, if a study from Japan into the uncanny valley of the usage of cloned humanlike faces in robotics and artificial intelligence, published in PLOS One, is to be believed.

Patrick Bursa/Pixabay

The study consisted of a number of six smaller experiments in which participants judged a series of images based on subjective eeriness, emotional valence, and realism. The images included people with the same cloned face; people with different faces; dogs; identical twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc.; and cloned animated characters. In the sixth experiment, the photos were the same as in the second (six cloned faces, six different faces, and a single face) but participants also answered the Disgust Scale–Revised to accurately analyze disgust sensitivity.

The results of all these experiments were quite clear: People found the cloned faces far creepier than the varied or single face, an effect the researchers called clone devaluation. Notably, this effect only applied to realistic human faces; most people didn’t find the cloned dogs or cloned animated characters creepy. However, those who did were more likely to find the human clones eerie on the Disgust Scale.

The authors noted that future robotics technology needs to be carefully considered to avoid the uncanny valley and this clone devaluation effect, which is a very good point. The last thing we need is a few million robots with identical faces getting angry at us and pulling a Terminator/Order 66 combo. We’re already in a viral apocalypse; we don’t need a robot one on top of that.
 

Congratulations to our new favorite reader

The winner of last week’s inaugural Pandemic Pandemonium comes to us from Tiffanie Roe. By getting her entry in first, just ahead of the flood of responses we received – and by flood we mean a very slow and very quickly repaired drip – Ms. Roe puts the gold medal for COVID-related insanity around the necks of Australian magpies, who may start attacking people wearing face masks during “swooping season” because the birds don’t recognize them.

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) and depression have an increased risk of death, compared with those with one or neither condition, as well as an increased risk of vascular disease, a new study has found. “The effects of depression and MS on all-cause mortality are synergistic,” wrote lead author Raffaele Palladino, MD, PhD, research associate, faculty of medicine, Imperial College London.

The study was published in Neurology.

To assess the association between depression, vascular disease, and death in patients with MS, the researchers launched a population-based retrospective cohort study that reviewed English medical records from January 1987 to December 2018 and matched people with and without MS. Ultimately, 12,251 people with MS were matched with 72,572 controls. At baseline, 21% of the MS group (n = 2,535) and 9% of the controls (n = 6,278) had depression. Women were the majority in both cohorts and were more likely than men to be depressed.

People with both MS and depression had an all-cause mortality rate of 10.3 cases per 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 9.17-11.57), compared with 10.6 for people with MS without depression (95% CI, 9.99-11.21), 3.6 for people with depression but not MS (95% CI, 3.18-4.05), and 2.5 for people with neither condition (95% CI, 2.42-2.64). Compared with controls without depression, the 10-year hazard of all-cause mortality was increasingly greater in controls with depression (hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.59-1.91), people with MS but not depression (HR, 3.88; 95% CI, 3.66-4.10), and people with MS and depression (HR, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.88-5.96). Overall, 14% of the observed effect on mortality was attributable to the interaction between MS status and depression.

As for vascular diseases, people with MS had an increased risk regardless of their depression status. That said, people with MS and depression (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.37-4.23) had a notably higher risk than people with MS and no depression (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23-1.74). Women with MS and depression also had a greater risk of vascular disease than women with MS and no depression, while men with MS did not have significantly different risks of acute coronary syndrome or composite macrovascular disease than those in the control group who did not suffer from depression.
 

Does treating depression decrease the likelihood of vascular disease?

“The take-home message for me is the importance of treating depression in this population, in which we see it with great regularity,” Joseph Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “The question that I have is: If you treat depression in an individual with MS or an individual who is simply depressed and thus at risk for the subsequent development of vascular disease, does it decrease the likelihood of their subsequent development of vascular disease in comparison to had you not?

“I presume it does,” he added, noting that “the theories underlying why depression would increase one’s risk of subsequent vascular disease are enumerated by the authors, including such things as increased inflammation. Now, the inflammation may be contributing to the depression, or the depression may be contributing to the inflammation; it may be one of those chicken-and-egg scenarios. But if you decrease the depression, do you thereby decrease the inflammation, which has a pernicious effect on endothelial cells and increases one’s vascular risk?

“Alternatively, lifestyle in depressed patients is also altered,” he said. “They’re far less likely to engage in exercise, healthy habits, and healthy diets, and more likely perhaps to smoke. These all need to be addressed, but this study certainly gives you a greater impetus as a MS neurologist to address the issue of depression, realizing that there is also this comorbidity of vascular disease.”
 

Evaluating the biological interaction between MS and depression

Based on this and other studies, the joint effect of MS and depression on all-cause mortality may qualify as a biological interaction, Amber Salter, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Biological interactions consider whether the joint effect of two factors follow an additive pattern, or the joint effect of two factors is greater than the sum of the individual effects for each factor alone,” she wrote. And though the interaction was not found to be present for vascular disease and cardiovascular mortality, it was for all-cause mortality.

“When warranted, the evaluation of biological interactions in future studies should be considered to provide insight on target subpopulations for interventions or test for potential mechanistic forms of interaction,” she added.

Dr. Salter highlighted the study’s strengths, including a large sample size and six controls matched to each MS patient. She also stated that the researchers’ inability to control for risk factors like body mass index and physical activity means the 14% increase in mortality “may not be a large absolute increase in mortality when other covariates cannot be considered.” In addition, their lack of data on suicide – and its association with depression – offers up the possibility that increases in mortality could be tied to a “potentially modifiable risk” as opposed to a biologically increased one.

In acknowledging their study’s limitations, the authors stated that body mass index, though an important vascular risk factor, has a “modest” association with mortality, and that the average annual suicide rate in the MS population – though higher than in the non-MS population – is still “relatively low.”

Two of the authors disclosed receiving support, including grants and research funding, from various institutions and organizations in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, as well as several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Salter reported no relevant disclosures.

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) and depression have an increased risk of death, compared with those with one or neither condition, as well as an increased risk of vascular disease, a new study has found. “The effects of depression and MS on all-cause mortality are synergistic,” wrote lead author Raffaele Palladino, MD, PhD, research associate, faculty of medicine, Imperial College London.

The study was published in Neurology.

To assess the association between depression, vascular disease, and death in patients with MS, the researchers launched a population-based retrospective cohort study that reviewed English medical records from January 1987 to December 2018 and matched people with and without MS. Ultimately, 12,251 people with MS were matched with 72,572 controls. At baseline, 21% of the MS group (n = 2,535) and 9% of the controls (n = 6,278) had depression. Women were the majority in both cohorts and were more likely than men to be depressed.

People with both MS and depression had an all-cause mortality rate of 10.3 cases per 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 9.17-11.57), compared with 10.6 for people with MS without depression (95% CI, 9.99-11.21), 3.6 for people with depression but not MS (95% CI, 3.18-4.05), and 2.5 for people with neither condition (95% CI, 2.42-2.64). Compared with controls without depression, the 10-year hazard of all-cause mortality was increasingly greater in controls with depression (hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.59-1.91), people with MS but not depression (HR, 3.88; 95% CI, 3.66-4.10), and people with MS and depression (HR, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.88-5.96). Overall, 14% of the observed effect on mortality was attributable to the interaction between MS status and depression.

As for vascular diseases, people with MS had an increased risk regardless of their depression status. That said, people with MS and depression (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.37-4.23) had a notably higher risk than people with MS and no depression (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23-1.74). Women with MS and depression also had a greater risk of vascular disease than women with MS and no depression, while men with MS did not have significantly different risks of acute coronary syndrome or composite macrovascular disease than those in the control group who did not suffer from depression.
 

Does treating depression decrease the likelihood of vascular disease?

“The take-home message for me is the importance of treating depression in this population, in which we see it with great regularity,” Joseph Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “The question that I have is: If you treat depression in an individual with MS or an individual who is simply depressed and thus at risk for the subsequent development of vascular disease, does it decrease the likelihood of their subsequent development of vascular disease in comparison to had you not?

“I presume it does,” he added, noting that “the theories underlying why depression would increase one’s risk of subsequent vascular disease are enumerated by the authors, including such things as increased inflammation. Now, the inflammation may be contributing to the depression, or the depression may be contributing to the inflammation; it may be one of those chicken-and-egg scenarios. But if you decrease the depression, do you thereby decrease the inflammation, which has a pernicious effect on endothelial cells and increases one’s vascular risk?

“Alternatively, lifestyle in depressed patients is also altered,” he said. “They’re far less likely to engage in exercise, healthy habits, and healthy diets, and more likely perhaps to smoke. These all need to be addressed, but this study certainly gives you a greater impetus as a MS neurologist to address the issue of depression, realizing that there is also this comorbidity of vascular disease.”
 

Evaluating the biological interaction between MS and depression

Based on this and other studies, the joint effect of MS and depression on all-cause mortality may qualify as a biological interaction, Amber Salter, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Biological interactions consider whether the joint effect of two factors follow an additive pattern, or the joint effect of two factors is greater than the sum of the individual effects for each factor alone,” she wrote. And though the interaction was not found to be present for vascular disease and cardiovascular mortality, it was for all-cause mortality.

“When warranted, the evaluation of biological interactions in future studies should be considered to provide insight on target subpopulations for interventions or test for potential mechanistic forms of interaction,” she added.

Dr. Salter highlighted the study’s strengths, including a large sample size and six controls matched to each MS patient. She also stated that the researchers’ inability to control for risk factors like body mass index and physical activity means the 14% increase in mortality “may not be a large absolute increase in mortality when other covariates cannot be considered.” In addition, their lack of data on suicide – and its association with depression – offers up the possibility that increases in mortality could be tied to a “potentially modifiable risk” as opposed to a biologically increased one.

In acknowledging their study’s limitations, the authors stated that body mass index, though an important vascular risk factor, has a “modest” association with mortality, and that the average annual suicide rate in the MS population – though higher than in the non-MS population – is still “relatively low.”

Two of the authors disclosed receiving support, including grants and research funding, from various institutions and organizations in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, as well as several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Salter reported no relevant disclosures.

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) and depression have an increased risk of death, compared with those with one or neither condition, as well as an increased risk of vascular disease, a new study has found. “The effects of depression and MS on all-cause mortality are synergistic,” wrote lead author Raffaele Palladino, MD, PhD, research associate, faculty of medicine, Imperial College London.

The study was published in Neurology.

To assess the association between depression, vascular disease, and death in patients with MS, the researchers launched a population-based retrospective cohort study that reviewed English medical records from January 1987 to December 2018 and matched people with and without MS. Ultimately, 12,251 people with MS were matched with 72,572 controls. At baseline, 21% of the MS group (n = 2,535) and 9% of the controls (n = 6,278) had depression. Women were the majority in both cohorts and were more likely than men to be depressed.

People with both MS and depression had an all-cause mortality rate of 10.3 cases per 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval, 9.17-11.57), compared with 10.6 for people with MS without depression (95% CI, 9.99-11.21), 3.6 for people with depression but not MS (95% CI, 3.18-4.05), and 2.5 for people with neither condition (95% CI, 2.42-2.64). Compared with controls without depression, the 10-year hazard of all-cause mortality was increasingly greater in controls with depression (hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.59-1.91), people with MS but not depression (HR, 3.88; 95% CI, 3.66-4.10), and people with MS and depression (HR, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.88-5.96). Overall, 14% of the observed effect on mortality was attributable to the interaction between MS status and depression.

As for vascular diseases, people with MS had an increased risk regardless of their depression status. That said, people with MS and depression (HR, 3.30; 95% CI, 2.37-4.23) had a notably higher risk than people with MS and no depression (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23-1.74). Women with MS and depression also had a greater risk of vascular disease than women with MS and no depression, while men with MS did not have significantly different risks of acute coronary syndrome or composite macrovascular disease than those in the control group who did not suffer from depression.
 

Does treating depression decrease the likelihood of vascular disease?

“The take-home message for me is the importance of treating depression in this population, in which we see it with great regularity,” Joseph Berger, MD, professor of neurology and associate chief of the multiple sclerosis division at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “The question that I have is: If you treat depression in an individual with MS or an individual who is simply depressed and thus at risk for the subsequent development of vascular disease, does it decrease the likelihood of their subsequent development of vascular disease in comparison to had you not?

“I presume it does,” he added, noting that “the theories underlying why depression would increase one’s risk of subsequent vascular disease are enumerated by the authors, including such things as increased inflammation. Now, the inflammation may be contributing to the depression, or the depression may be contributing to the inflammation; it may be one of those chicken-and-egg scenarios. But if you decrease the depression, do you thereby decrease the inflammation, which has a pernicious effect on endothelial cells and increases one’s vascular risk?

“Alternatively, lifestyle in depressed patients is also altered,” he said. “They’re far less likely to engage in exercise, healthy habits, and healthy diets, and more likely perhaps to smoke. These all need to be addressed, but this study certainly gives you a greater impetus as a MS neurologist to address the issue of depression, realizing that there is also this comorbidity of vascular disease.”
 

Evaluating the biological interaction between MS and depression

Based on this and other studies, the joint effect of MS and depression on all-cause mortality may qualify as a biological interaction, Amber Salter, PhD, of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

“Biological interactions consider whether the joint effect of two factors follow an additive pattern, or the joint effect of two factors is greater than the sum of the individual effects for each factor alone,” she wrote. And though the interaction was not found to be present for vascular disease and cardiovascular mortality, it was for all-cause mortality.

“When warranted, the evaluation of biological interactions in future studies should be considered to provide insight on target subpopulations for interventions or test for potential mechanistic forms of interaction,” she added.

Dr. Salter highlighted the study’s strengths, including a large sample size and six controls matched to each MS patient. She also stated that the researchers’ inability to control for risk factors like body mass index and physical activity means the 14% increase in mortality “may not be a large absolute increase in mortality when other covariates cannot be considered.” In addition, their lack of data on suicide – and its association with depression – offers up the possibility that increases in mortality could be tied to a “potentially modifiable risk” as opposed to a biologically increased one.

In acknowledging their study’s limitations, the authors stated that body mass index, though an important vascular risk factor, has a “modest” association with mortality, and that the average annual suicide rate in the MS population – though higher than in the non-MS population – is still “relatively low.”

Two of the authors disclosed receiving support, including grants and research funding, from various institutions and organizations in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, as well as several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Salter reported no relevant disclosures.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 6-month injection form of the long-acting atypical antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate (Invega Hafyera, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults, the company has announced.

This marks the “first-and-only twice-yearly injectable” approved for treating schizophrenia, the company added in a press release.
 

Before transitioning to the 6-month form, patients must be adequately treated for a minimum of 4 months with the company’s 1-month formulation of paliperidone (Invega Sustenna), or with the 3-month version (Invega Trinza) for at least one 3-month injection cycle.

The FDA approved the twice-yearly formulation on the basis of results from a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study that enrolled 702 adults with schizophrenia from 20 countries.

“The phase 3 trial results provide compelling evidence that 6-month paliperidone palmitate offers longer-term symptom control with the fewest doses per year, which may support greater patient adherence,” Gustavo Alva, MD, medical director at ATP Clinical Research, Costa Mesa, Calif., and 6-month paliperidone palmitate clinical trial investigator, said in the release.

Noninferiority results

In the phase 3 trial, the twice-yearly version of the drug proved noninferior to the 3-month version on the primary endpoint of time to first relapse at the end of 12 months, with 92.5% and 95% of patients, respectively, relapse-free at 12 months.

Relapse was defined as psychiatric hospitalization, increase in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, increase in individual PANSS item scores, self-injury, violent behavior, or suicidal/homicidal ideation.

The safety profile observed in the trial was in line with prior studies of the 1-month and 3-month versions, with no new safety signals, the researchers note.

The most common adverse reactions affecting at least 5% of participants in the clinical trial receiving twice-year paliperidone were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), injection site reaction (11%), weight gain (9%), headache (7%), and parkinsonism (5%).

Relapse is common in adults with schizophrenia, often because of missed doses of medication, the company said in the news release.

“For too long, we’ve accepted relapse as a normal part of living with schizophrenia, while research continues to demonstrate that stronger medication adherence means better patient outcomes,” Dr. Alva said.

Recently updated evidence-based guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association recommend consideration of long-acting injectables for appropriate adults living with schizophrenia.

 “Long-acting injectable treatments offer a number of advantages, compared to oral medication for schizophrenia, including relief from needing to remember to take medication daily, lower discontinuation rates, and sustained treatment over longer periods,” Bill Martin, PhD, with Janssen Research & Development, said in the release.

“Today’s approval enables us to rethink how we manage this chronic disease by offering patients and caregivers the potential for a life less defined by schizophrenia medication,” Dr. Martin added.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 6-month injection form of the long-acting atypical antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate (Invega Hafyera, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults, the company has announced.

This marks the “first-and-only twice-yearly injectable” approved for treating schizophrenia, the company added in a press release.
 

Before transitioning to the 6-month form, patients must be adequately treated for a minimum of 4 months with the company’s 1-month formulation of paliperidone (Invega Sustenna), or with the 3-month version (Invega Trinza) for at least one 3-month injection cycle.

The FDA approved the twice-yearly formulation on the basis of results from a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study that enrolled 702 adults with schizophrenia from 20 countries.

“The phase 3 trial results provide compelling evidence that 6-month paliperidone palmitate offers longer-term symptom control with the fewest doses per year, which may support greater patient adherence,” Gustavo Alva, MD, medical director at ATP Clinical Research, Costa Mesa, Calif., and 6-month paliperidone palmitate clinical trial investigator, said in the release.

Noninferiority results

In the phase 3 trial, the twice-yearly version of the drug proved noninferior to the 3-month version on the primary endpoint of time to first relapse at the end of 12 months, with 92.5% and 95% of patients, respectively, relapse-free at 12 months.

Relapse was defined as psychiatric hospitalization, increase in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, increase in individual PANSS item scores, self-injury, violent behavior, or suicidal/homicidal ideation.

The safety profile observed in the trial was in line with prior studies of the 1-month and 3-month versions, with no new safety signals, the researchers note.

The most common adverse reactions affecting at least 5% of participants in the clinical trial receiving twice-year paliperidone were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), injection site reaction (11%), weight gain (9%), headache (7%), and parkinsonism (5%).

Relapse is common in adults with schizophrenia, often because of missed doses of medication, the company said in the news release.

“For too long, we’ve accepted relapse as a normal part of living with schizophrenia, while research continues to demonstrate that stronger medication adherence means better patient outcomes,” Dr. Alva said.

Recently updated evidence-based guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association recommend consideration of long-acting injectables for appropriate adults living with schizophrenia.

 “Long-acting injectable treatments offer a number of advantages, compared to oral medication for schizophrenia, including relief from needing to remember to take medication daily, lower discontinuation rates, and sustained treatment over longer periods,” Bill Martin, PhD, with Janssen Research & Development, said in the release.

“Today’s approval enables us to rethink how we manage this chronic disease by offering patients and caregivers the potential for a life less defined by schizophrenia medication,” Dr. Martin added.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved a 6-month injection form of the long-acting atypical antipsychotic paliperidone palmitate (Invega Hafyera, Janssen Pharmaceuticals) for the treatment of schizophrenia in adults, the company has announced.

This marks the “first-and-only twice-yearly injectable” approved for treating schizophrenia, the company added in a press release.
 

Before transitioning to the 6-month form, patients must be adequately treated for a minimum of 4 months with the company’s 1-month formulation of paliperidone (Invega Sustenna), or with the 3-month version (Invega Trinza) for at least one 3-month injection cycle.

The FDA approved the twice-yearly formulation on the basis of results from a 12-month, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study that enrolled 702 adults with schizophrenia from 20 countries.

“The phase 3 trial results provide compelling evidence that 6-month paliperidone palmitate offers longer-term symptom control with the fewest doses per year, which may support greater patient adherence,” Gustavo Alva, MD, medical director at ATP Clinical Research, Costa Mesa, Calif., and 6-month paliperidone palmitate clinical trial investigator, said in the release.

Noninferiority results

In the phase 3 trial, the twice-yearly version of the drug proved noninferior to the 3-month version on the primary endpoint of time to first relapse at the end of 12 months, with 92.5% and 95% of patients, respectively, relapse-free at 12 months.

Relapse was defined as psychiatric hospitalization, increase in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score, increase in individual PANSS item scores, self-injury, violent behavior, or suicidal/homicidal ideation.

The safety profile observed in the trial was in line with prior studies of the 1-month and 3-month versions, with no new safety signals, the researchers note.

The most common adverse reactions affecting at least 5% of participants in the clinical trial receiving twice-year paliperidone were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), injection site reaction (11%), weight gain (9%), headache (7%), and parkinsonism (5%).

Relapse is common in adults with schizophrenia, often because of missed doses of medication, the company said in the news release.

“For too long, we’ve accepted relapse as a normal part of living with schizophrenia, while research continues to demonstrate that stronger medication adherence means better patient outcomes,” Dr. Alva said.

Recently updated evidence-based guidelines from the American Psychiatric Association recommend consideration of long-acting injectables for appropriate adults living with schizophrenia.

 “Long-acting injectable treatments offer a number of advantages, compared to oral medication for schizophrenia, including relief from needing to remember to take medication daily, lower discontinuation rates, and sustained treatment over longer periods,” Bill Martin, PhD, with Janssen Research & Development, said in the release.

“Today’s approval enables us to rethink how we manage this chronic disease by offering patients and caregivers the potential for a life less defined by schizophrenia medication,” Dr. Martin added.

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

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Opioid overdose deaths were significantly higher during 2020, but occurrences were not homogeneous across nine states. Male deaths were higher than in the 2 previous years in two states, according to a new, granular examination of data collected by researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass General), Boston.

The analysis also showed that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl played an outsized role in most of the states that were reviewed. Additional drugs of abuse found in decedents, such as cocaine and psychostimulants, were more prevalent in some states than in others.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used provisional death data in its recent report. It found that opioid-related deaths substantially rose in 2020 and that synthetic opioids were a primary driver.

The current Mass General analysis provides a more timely and detailed dive, senior author Mohammad Jalali, PhD, who is a senior scientist at Mass General’s Institute for Technology Assessment, told this news organization.

The findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published in MedRxiv.
 

Shifting sands of opioid use disorder

Dr. Jalali and colleagues used a decision analysis approach to study opioid data in the hopes of providing better tools for policymakers to analyze and project trends and also to be better prepared to address the shifting sands of opioid use disorder in the United States.

They attempted to collect data on confirmed opioid overdose deaths from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. to assess what might have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only nine states provided enough data for the analysis, which has been submitted to a peer reviewed publication.

These states were Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

“Drug overdose data are collected and reported more slowly than COVID-19 data,” Dr. Jalali said in a press release. The data reflected a lag time of about 4 to 8 months in Massachusetts and North Carolina to more than a year in Maryland and Ohio, he noted.

The reporting lag “has clouded the understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid-related overdose deaths,” said Dr. Jalali.

Commenting on the findings, Brandon Marshall, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I, said that “the overall pattern of what’s being reported here is not surprising,” given the national trends seen in the CDC data.

“This paper adds a deeper dive into some of the sociodemographic trends that we’re starting to observe in specific states,” Dr. Marshall said.

Also commenting for this news organization, Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, director of the psychiatric emergency department at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, Connecticut, noted that the current study “highlights things that we are currently seeing at VA Connecticut.”
 

Decrease in heroin, rise in fentanyl

The investigators found a significant reduction in overdose deaths that involved heroin in Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. That was a new trend for Alaska, Indiana, and Rhode Island, although with only 3 years of data, it’s hard to say whether it will continue, Dr. Jalali noted.

The decrease in heroin involvement seemed to continue a trend previously observed in Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

In Connecticut, heroin was involved in 36% of deaths in 2018, 30% in 2019, and 16% in 2020, according to the study.

“We have begun seeing more and more heroin-negative, fentanyl-positive drug screens,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, who is also associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“There is a shift from fentanyl being an adulterant to fentanyl being what is sold and used exclusively,” he added.

In 2020, 92% (n = 887) of deaths in Connecticut involved synthetic opioids, continuing a trend. In Alaska, however, synthetic opioids were involved in 60% (44) of deaths, which is a big jump from 23% (9) in 2018.

Synthetic opioids were involved in the largest percentage of overdoses in all of the states studied. The fewest deaths, 17 (49%), occurred in Wyoming.

Cocaine is also increasingly found in addition to other substances in decedents. In Alaska, about 14% of individuals who overdosed in 2020 also had cocaine in their system, which was a jump from 2% in the prior year.

In Colorado, 19% (94) of those who died also had taken cocaine, up from 13% in 2019. Cocaine was also frequently found in those who died in the northeast: 39% (467) of those who died in Massachusetts, 29% (280) in Connecticut, and 47% (109) in Rhode Island.

There was also an increase in psychostimulants found in those who had died in Massachusetts in 2020.
 

More male overdoses in 2020

Results also showed that, compared to 2019, significantly more men died from overdoses in 2020 in Colorado (61% vs. 70%, P = .017) and Indiana (62% vs. 70%, P = .026).

This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Marshall, who has observed the same phenomenon in Rhode Island. He is the scientific director of PreventOverdoseRI, Rhode Island’s drug overdose surveillance and information dashboard.

Dr. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a study that also found disproportionate increases in overdoses among men. The findings of that study will be published in September.

“We’re still trying to wrap our head around why that is,” he said. He added that a deeper dive into the Rhode Island data showed that the deaths were increased especially among middle-aged men who had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.

The same patterns were not seen among women in either Dr. Jalali’s study or his own analysis of the Rhode Island data, said Dr. Marshall.

“That suggests the COVID-19 pandemic impacted men who are at risk for overdose in some particularly severe way,” he noted.

Dr. Fuehrlein said he believes a variety of factors have led to an increase in overdose deaths during the pandemic, including the fact that many patients who would normally seek help avoided care or dropped out of treatment because of COVID fears. In addition, other support systems, such as group therapy and Narcotics Anonymous, were unavailable.

The pandemic increased stress, which can lead to worsening substance use, said Dr. Fuehrlein. He also noted that regular opioid suppliers were often not available, which led some to buy from different dealers, “which can lead to overdose if the fentanyl content is different.”
 

Identifying at-risk individuals

Dr. Jalali and colleagues note that clinicians and policymakers could use the new study to help identify and treat at-risk individuals.

“Practitioners and policy makers can use our findings to help them anticipate which groups of people might be most affected by opioid overdose and which types of policy interventions might be most effective given each state’s unique situation,” said lead study author Gian-Gabriel P. Garcia, PhD, in a press release. At the time of the study, Dr. Garcia was a postdoctoral fellow at Mass General and Harvard Medical School. He is currently an assistant professor at Georgia Tech, Atlanta.

Dr. Marshall pointed out that Dr. Jalali’s study is also relevant for emergency departments.

ED clinicians “are and will be seeing patients coming in who have no idea they were exposed to an opioid, nevermind fentanyl,” he said. ED clinicians can discuss with patients various harm reduction techniques, including the use of naloxone as well as test strips that can detect fentanyl in the drug supply, he added.

“Given the increasing use of fentanyl, which is very dangerous in overdose, clinicians need to be well versed in a harm reduction/overdose prevention approach to patient care,” Dr. Fuehrlein agreed.

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

Opioid overdose deaths were significantly higher during 2020, but occurrences were not homogeneous across nine states. Male deaths were higher than in the 2 previous years in two states, according to a new, granular examination of data collected by researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass General), Boston.

The analysis also showed that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl played an outsized role in most of the states that were reviewed. Additional drugs of abuse found in decedents, such as cocaine and psychostimulants, were more prevalent in some states than in others.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used provisional death data in its recent report. It found that opioid-related deaths substantially rose in 2020 and that synthetic opioids were a primary driver.

The current Mass General analysis provides a more timely and detailed dive, senior author Mohammad Jalali, PhD, who is a senior scientist at Mass General’s Institute for Technology Assessment, told this news organization.

The findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published in MedRxiv.
 

Shifting sands of opioid use disorder

Dr. Jalali and colleagues used a decision analysis approach to study opioid data in the hopes of providing better tools for policymakers to analyze and project trends and also to be better prepared to address the shifting sands of opioid use disorder in the United States.

They attempted to collect data on confirmed opioid overdose deaths from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. to assess what might have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only nine states provided enough data for the analysis, which has been submitted to a peer reviewed publication.

These states were Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

“Drug overdose data are collected and reported more slowly than COVID-19 data,” Dr. Jalali said in a press release. The data reflected a lag time of about 4 to 8 months in Massachusetts and North Carolina to more than a year in Maryland and Ohio, he noted.

The reporting lag “has clouded the understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid-related overdose deaths,” said Dr. Jalali.

Commenting on the findings, Brandon Marshall, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I, said that “the overall pattern of what’s being reported here is not surprising,” given the national trends seen in the CDC data.

“This paper adds a deeper dive into some of the sociodemographic trends that we’re starting to observe in specific states,” Dr. Marshall said.

Also commenting for this news organization, Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, director of the psychiatric emergency department at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, Connecticut, noted that the current study “highlights things that we are currently seeing at VA Connecticut.”
 

Decrease in heroin, rise in fentanyl

The investigators found a significant reduction in overdose deaths that involved heroin in Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. That was a new trend for Alaska, Indiana, and Rhode Island, although with only 3 years of data, it’s hard to say whether it will continue, Dr. Jalali noted.

The decrease in heroin involvement seemed to continue a trend previously observed in Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

In Connecticut, heroin was involved in 36% of deaths in 2018, 30% in 2019, and 16% in 2020, according to the study.

“We have begun seeing more and more heroin-negative, fentanyl-positive drug screens,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, who is also associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“There is a shift from fentanyl being an adulterant to fentanyl being what is sold and used exclusively,” he added.

In 2020, 92% (n = 887) of deaths in Connecticut involved synthetic opioids, continuing a trend. In Alaska, however, synthetic opioids were involved in 60% (44) of deaths, which is a big jump from 23% (9) in 2018.

Synthetic opioids were involved in the largest percentage of overdoses in all of the states studied. The fewest deaths, 17 (49%), occurred in Wyoming.

Cocaine is also increasingly found in addition to other substances in decedents. In Alaska, about 14% of individuals who overdosed in 2020 also had cocaine in their system, which was a jump from 2% in the prior year.

In Colorado, 19% (94) of those who died also had taken cocaine, up from 13% in 2019. Cocaine was also frequently found in those who died in the northeast: 39% (467) of those who died in Massachusetts, 29% (280) in Connecticut, and 47% (109) in Rhode Island.

There was also an increase in psychostimulants found in those who had died in Massachusetts in 2020.
 

More male overdoses in 2020

Results also showed that, compared to 2019, significantly more men died from overdoses in 2020 in Colorado (61% vs. 70%, P = .017) and Indiana (62% vs. 70%, P = .026).

This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Marshall, who has observed the same phenomenon in Rhode Island. He is the scientific director of PreventOverdoseRI, Rhode Island’s drug overdose surveillance and information dashboard.

Dr. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a study that also found disproportionate increases in overdoses among men. The findings of that study will be published in September.

“We’re still trying to wrap our head around why that is,” he said. He added that a deeper dive into the Rhode Island data showed that the deaths were increased especially among middle-aged men who had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.

The same patterns were not seen among women in either Dr. Jalali’s study or his own analysis of the Rhode Island data, said Dr. Marshall.

“That suggests the COVID-19 pandemic impacted men who are at risk for overdose in some particularly severe way,” he noted.

Dr. Fuehrlein said he believes a variety of factors have led to an increase in overdose deaths during the pandemic, including the fact that many patients who would normally seek help avoided care or dropped out of treatment because of COVID fears. In addition, other support systems, such as group therapy and Narcotics Anonymous, were unavailable.

The pandemic increased stress, which can lead to worsening substance use, said Dr. Fuehrlein. He also noted that regular opioid suppliers were often not available, which led some to buy from different dealers, “which can lead to overdose if the fentanyl content is different.”
 

Identifying at-risk individuals

Dr. Jalali and colleagues note that clinicians and policymakers could use the new study to help identify and treat at-risk individuals.

“Practitioners and policy makers can use our findings to help them anticipate which groups of people might be most affected by opioid overdose and which types of policy interventions might be most effective given each state’s unique situation,” said lead study author Gian-Gabriel P. Garcia, PhD, in a press release. At the time of the study, Dr. Garcia was a postdoctoral fellow at Mass General and Harvard Medical School. He is currently an assistant professor at Georgia Tech, Atlanta.

Dr. Marshall pointed out that Dr. Jalali’s study is also relevant for emergency departments.

ED clinicians “are and will be seeing patients coming in who have no idea they were exposed to an opioid, nevermind fentanyl,” he said. ED clinicians can discuss with patients various harm reduction techniques, including the use of naloxone as well as test strips that can detect fentanyl in the drug supply, he added.

“Given the increasing use of fentanyl, which is very dangerous in overdose, clinicians need to be well versed in a harm reduction/overdose prevention approach to patient care,” Dr. Fuehrlein agreed.

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

Opioid overdose deaths were significantly higher during 2020, but occurrences were not homogeneous across nine states. Male deaths were higher than in the 2 previous years in two states, according to a new, granular examination of data collected by researchers at the Massachusetts General Hospital (Mass General), Boston.

The analysis also showed that synthetic opioids such as fentanyl played an outsized role in most of the states that were reviewed. Additional drugs of abuse found in decedents, such as cocaine and psychostimulants, were more prevalent in some states than in others.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used provisional death data in its recent report. It found that opioid-related deaths substantially rose in 2020 and that synthetic opioids were a primary driver.

The current Mass General analysis provides a more timely and detailed dive, senior author Mohammad Jalali, PhD, who is a senior scientist at Mass General’s Institute for Technology Assessment, told this news organization.

The findings, which have not yet been peer reviewed, were published in MedRxiv.
 

Shifting sands of opioid use disorder

Dr. Jalali and colleagues used a decision analysis approach to study opioid data in the hopes of providing better tools for policymakers to analyze and project trends and also to be better prepared to address the shifting sands of opioid use disorder in the United States.

They attempted to collect data on confirmed opioid overdose deaths from all 50 states and Washington, D.C. to assess what might have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only nine states provided enough data for the analysis, which has been submitted to a peer reviewed publication.

These states were Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

“Drug overdose data are collected and reported more slowly than COVID-19 data,” Dr. Jalali said in a press release. The data reflected a lag time of about 4 to 8 months in Massachusetts and North Carolina to more than a year in Maryland and Ohio, he noted.

The reporting lag “has clouded the understanding of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid-related overdose deaths,” said Dr. Jalali.

Commenting on the findings, Brandon Marshall, PhD, associate professor of epidemiology at Brown University, Providence, R.I, said that “the overall pattern of what’s being reported here is not surprising,” given the national trends seen in the CDC data.

“This paper adds a deeper dive into some of the sociodemographic trends that we’re starting to observe in specific states,” Dr. Marshall said.

Also commenting for this news organization, Brian Fuehrlein, MD, PhD, director of the psychiatric emergency department at the VA Connecticut Healthcare System in West Haven, Connecticut, noted that the current study “highlights things that we are currently seeing at VA Connecticut.”
 

Decrease in heroin, rise in fentanyl

The investigators found a significant reduction in overdose deaths that involved heroin in Alaska, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. That was a new trend for Alaska, Indiana, and Rhode Island, although with only 3 years of data, it’s hard to say whether it will continue, Dr. Jalali noted.

The decrease in heroin involvement seemed to continue a trend previously observed in Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and North Carolina.

In Connecticut, heroin was involved in 36% of deaths in 2018, 30% in 2019, and 16% in 2020, according to the study.

“We have begun seeing more and more heroin-negative, fentanyl-positive drug screens,” said Dr. Fuehrlein, who is also associate professor of psychiatry at Yale University, New Haven, Conn.

“There is a shift from fentanyl being an adulterant to fentanyl being what is sold and used exclusively,” he added.

In 2020, 92% (n = 887) of deaths in Connecticut involved synthetic opioids, continuing a trend. In Alaska, however, synthetic opioids were involved in 60% (44) of deaths, which is a big jump from 23% (9) in 2018.

Synthetic opioids were involved in the largest percentage of overdoses in all of the states studied. The fewest deaths, 17 (49%), occurred in Wyoming.

Cocaine is also increasingly found in addition to other substances in decedents. In Alaska, about 14% of individuals who overdosed in 2020 also had cocaine in their system, which was a jump from 2% in the prior year.

In Colorado, 19% (94) of those who died also had taken cocaine, up from 13% in 2019. Cocaine was also frequently found in those who died in the northeast: 39% (467) of those who died in Massachusetts, 29% (280) in Connecticut, and 47% (109) in Rhode Island.

There was also an increase in psychostimulants found in those who had died in Massachusetts in 2020.
 

More male overdoses in 2020

Results also showed that, compared to 2019, significantly more men died from overdoses in 2020 in Colorado (61% vs. 70%, P = .017) and Indiana (62% vs. 70%, P = .026).

This finding was unexpected, said Dr. Marshall, who has observed the same phenomenon in Rhode Island. He is the scientific director of PreventOverdoseRI, Rhode Island’s drug overdose surveillance and information dashboard.

Dr. Marshall and his colleagues conducted a study that also found disproportionate increases in overdoses among men. The findings of that study will be published in September.

“We’re still trying to wrap our head around why that is,” he said. He added that a deeper dive into the Rhode Island data showed that the deaths were increased especially among middle-aged men who had been diagnosed with depression and anxiety.

The same patterns were not seen among women in either Dr. Jalali’s study or his own analysis of the Rhode Island data, said Dr. Marshall.

“That suggests the COVID-19 pandemic impacted men who are at risk for overdose in some particularly severe way,” he noted.

Dr. Fuehrlein said he believes a variety of factors have led to an increase in overdose deaths during the pandemic, including the fact that many patients who would normally seek help avoided care or dropped out of treatment because of COVID fears. In addition, other support systems, such as group therapy and Narcotics Anonymous, were unavailable.

The pandemic increased stress, which can lead to worsening substance use, said Dr. Fuehrlein. He also noted that regular opioid suppliers were often not available, which led some to buy from different dealers, “which can lead to overdose if the fentanyl content is different.”
 

Identifying at-risk individuals

Dr. Jalali and colleagues note that clinicians and policymakers could use the new study to help identify and treat at-risk individuals.

“Practitioners and policy makers can use our findings to help them anticipate which groups of people might be most affected by opioid overdose and which types of policy interventions might be most effective given each state’s unique situation,” said lead study author Gian-Gabriel P. Garcia, PhD, in a press release. At the time of the study, Dr. Garcia was a postdoctoral fellow at Mass General and Harvard Medical School. He is currently an assistant professor at Georgia Tech, Atlanta.

Dr. Marshall pointed out that Dr. Jalali’s study is also relevant for emergency departments.

ED clinicians “are and will be seeing patients coming in who have no idea they were exposed to an opioid, nevermind fentanyl,” he said. ED clinicians can discuss with patients various harm reduction techniques, including the use of naloxone as well as test strips that can detect fentanyl in the drug supply, he added.

“Given the increasing use of fentanyl, which is very dangerous in overdose, clinicians need to be well versed in a harm reduction/overdose prevention approach to patient care,” Dr. Fuehrlein agreed.

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

Presently, FDA-approved first-line treatments and standard adjunctive strategies (eg, lithium, thyroid supplementation, stimulants, second-generation antipsychotics) for major depressive disorder (MDD) often produce less-than-desired outcomes while carrying a potentially substantial safety and tolerability burden. The lack of clinically useful and individual-based biomarkers (eg, genetic, neurophysiological, imaging) is a major obstacle to enhancing treatment efficacy and/or decreasing associated adverse effects (AEs). While the discovery of such tools is being aggressively pursued and ultimately will facilitate a more precision-based choice of therapy, empirical strategies remain our primary approach.

In controlled trials, several nontraditional treatments used primarily as adjuncts to standard antidepressants have shown promise. These include “repurposed” (off-label) medications, herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

Importantly, some nontraditional treatments also demonstrate AEs (Table^1-16). With a careful consideration of the risk/benefit balance, this article reviews some of the better-studied treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). In Part 1, we will examine off-label medications. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional approaches to TRD, including herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

We believe this review will help clinicians who need to formulate a different approach after their patient with depression is not helped by traditional first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The potential options discussed in Part 1 of this article are categorized based on their putative mechanism of action (MOA) for depression.

Serotonergic and noradrenergic strategies

Pimavanserin is FDA-approved for treatment of Parkinson’s psychosis. Its potential MOA as an adjunctive strategy for MDD may involve 5-HT2A antagonist and inverse agonist receptor activity, as well as lesser effects at the 5-HT2Creceptor.

A 2-stage, 5-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) (CLARITY; N = 207) found adjunctive pimavanserin (34 mg/d) produced a robust antidepressant effect vs placebo in patients whose depression did not respond to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).¹ Furthermore, a secondary analysis of the data suggested that pimavanserin also improved sleepiness (P < .0003) and daily functioning (P < .014) at Week 5.²

Unfortunately, two 6-week, Phase III RCTs (CLARITY-2 and -3; N = 298) did not find a statistically significant difference between active treatment and placebo. This was based on change in the primary outcome measure (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 score) when adjunctive pimavanserin (34 mg/d) was added to an SSRI or SNRI in patients with TRD.³ There was, however, a significant difference favoring active treatment over placebo based on the Clinical Global Impression–Severity score.

Continue to: In these trials...

In these trials, pimavanserin was generally well-tolerated. The most common AEs were dry mouth, nausea, and headache. Pimavanserin has minimal activity at norepinephrine, dopamine, histamine, or acetylcholine receptors, thus avoiding AEs associated with these receptor interactions.

Given the mixed efficacy results of existing trials, further studies are needed to clarify this agent’s overall risk/benefit in the context of TRD.

Antihypertensive medications

Emerging data suggest that some beta-adrenergic blockers, angiotensin-inhibiting agents, and calcium antagonists are associated with a decreased incidence of depression. A large 2020 study (N = 3,747,190) used population-based Danish registries (2005 to 2015) to evaluate if any of the 41 most commonly prescribed antihypertensive medications were associated with the diagnosis of depressive disorder or use of antidepressants.⁴ These researchers found that enalapril, ramipril, amlodipine, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol (P < .001), and verapamil (P < .004) were strongly associated with a decreased risk of depression.⁴

Adverse effects across these different classes of antihypertensives are well characterized, can be substantial, and commonly are related to their impact on cardiovascular function (eg, hypotension). Clinically, these agents may be potential adjuncts for patients with TRD who need antihypertensive therapy. Their use and the choice of specific agent should only be determined in consultation with the patient’s primary care physician (PCP) or appropriate specialist.

Glutamatergic strategies

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic and analgesic. Its MOA for treating depression appears to occur primarily through antagonist activity at the N-methyl-D-aspartate ionotropic receptor of the glutamatergic system. There is preliminary evidence that its opioid receptor actions also may contribute to its antidepressant effect.⁵

Continue to: Many published studies...

Many published studies and reviews have described ketamine’s role for treating MDD. Several studies have reported that low-dose (0.5 mg/kg) IV ketamine infusions can rapidly attenuate severe episodes of MDD as well as associated suicidality. For example, a meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 368) comparing ketamine to placebo for acute treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression reported superior therapeutic effects with active treatment at 24 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days.⁶ The response and remission rates for ketamine were 52% and 21% at 24 hours; 48% and 24% at 72 hours; and 40% and 26% at 7 days, respectively.⁶

The most commonly reported AEs during the 4 hours after ketamine infusion included⁷:

• drowsiness, dizziness, poor coordination
• blurred vision, feeling strange or unreal
• hemodynamic changes (approximately 33%)
• small but significant (P < .05) increases in psychotomimetic and dissociative symptoms.

Because some individuals use ketamine recreationally, this agent also carries the risk of abuse.

Research is ongoing on strategies for long-term maintenance ketamine treatment, and the results of both short- and long-term trials will require careful scrutiny to better assess this agent’s safety and tolerability. Clinicians should first consider esketamine—the S-enantiomer of ketamine—because an intranasal formulation of this agent is FDA-approved for treating patients with TRD or MDD with suicidality when administered in a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy–certified setting.

Cholinergic strategies

Scopolamine is a potent muscarinic receptor antagonist used to prevent nausea and vomiting caused by motion sickness or medications used during surgery. Its use for MDD is based on the theory that muscarinic receptors may be hypersensitive in mood disorders.

Continue to: Several double-blind RCTs...

Several double-blind RCTs of patients with unipolar or bipolar depression that used 3 pulsed IV infusions (4.0 mcg/kg) over 15 minutes found a rapid, robust antidepressant effect with scopolamine vs placebo.^8,9 The oral formulation might also be effective, but would not have a rapid onset.

Common adverse effects of scopolamine include agitation, dry mouth, urinary retention, and cognitive clouding. Given scopolamine’s substantial AE profile, it should be considered only for patients with TRD who could also benefit from the oral formulation for the medical indications noted above, should generally be avoided in older patients, and should be prescribed in consultation with the patient’s PCP.

Botulinum toxin. This neurotoxin inhibits acetylcholine release. It is used to treat disorders characterized by abnormal muscular contraction, such as strabismus, blepharospasm, and chronic pain syndromes. Its MOA for depression may involve its paralytic effects after injection into the glabella forehead muscle (based on the facial feedback hypothesis), as well as modulation of neurotransmitters implicated in the pathophysiology of depression.

In several small trials, injectable botulinum toxin type A (BTA) (29 units) demonstrated antidepressant effects. A recent review that considered 6 trials (N = 235; 4 of the 6 studies were RCTs, 3 of which were rated as high quality) concluded that BTA may be a promising treatment for MDD.¹⁰ Limitations of this review included lack of a priori hypotheses, small sample sizes, gender bias, and difficulty in blinding.

In clinical trials, the most common AEs included local irritation at the injection site and transient headache. This agent’s relatively mild AE profile and possible overlap when used for some of the medical indications noted above opens its potential use as an adjunct in patients with comorbid TRD.

Continue to: Endocrine strategies

Endocrine strategies

Mifepristone (RU486). This anti-glucocorticoid receptor antagonist is used as an abortifacient. Based on the theory that hyperactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is implicated in the pathophysiology of MDD with psychotic features (psychotic depression), this agent has been studied as a treatment for this indication.

An analysis of 5 double-blind RCTs (N = 1,460) found that 7 days of mifepristone, 1,200 mg/d, was superior to placebo (P < .004) in reducing psychotic symptoms of depression.¹¹ Plasma concentrations ≥1,600 ng/mL may be required to maximize benefit.¹¹

Overall, this agent demonstrated a good safety profile in clinical trials, with treatment-emergent AEs reported in 556 (66.7%) patients who received mifepristone vs 386 (61.6%) patients who received placebo.¹¹ Common AEs included gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, headache, and dizziness. However, 3 deaths occurred: 2 patients who received mifepristone and 1 patient who received placebo. Given this potential for a fatal outcome, clinicians should first consider prescribing an adjunctive antipsychotic agent or electroconvulsive therapy.

Estrogens. These hormones are important for sexual and reproductive development and are used to treat various sexual/reproductive disorders, primarily in women. Their role in treating depression is based on the observation that perimenopause is accompanied by an increased risk of new and recurrent depression coincident with declining ovarian function.

Evidence supports the antidepressant efficacy of transdermal estradiol plus progesterone for perimenopausal depression, but not for postmenopausal depression.^12-14 However, estrogens carry significant risks that must be carefully considered in relationship to their potential benefits. These risks include:

• vaginal bleeding, dysmenorrhea
• fibroid enlargement
• galactorrhea
• ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, breast cancer
• deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism
• hypertension, chest pain, myocardial infarction, stroke.

Continue to: The use of estrogens...

The use of estrogens as an adjunctive therapy for women with treatment-resistant perimenopausal depression should only be undertaken when standard strategies have failed, and in consultation with an endocrine specialist who can monitor for potentially serious AEs.

Opioid medications

Buprenorphine is used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) as well as acute and chronic pain. The opioid system is involved in the regulation of mood and may be an appropriate target for novel antidepressants. The use of buprenorphine in combination with samidorphan (a preferential mu-opioid receptor antagonist) has shown initial promise for TRD while minimizing abuse potential.

Although earlier results were mixed, a pooled analysis of 2 recent large RCTs (N = 760) of patients with MDD who had not responded to antidepressants reported greater reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline for active treatment (buprenorphine/samidorphan; 2 mg/2 mg) vs placebo at multiple timepoints, including end of treatment (-1.8; P < .010).¹⁵

The most common AEs included nausea, constipation, dizziness, vomiting, somnolence, fatigue, and sedation. There was minimal evidence of abuse, dependence, or opioid withdrawal. Due to the opioid crisis in the United States, the resulting relaxation of regulations regarding prescribing buprenorphine, and the high rates of depression among patients with OUD, buprenorphine/samidorphan, which is an investigational agent that is not FDA-approved, may be particularly helpful for patients with OUD who also experience comorbid TRD.

Antioxidant agents

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is an amino acid that can treat acetaminophen toxicity and moderate hepatic damage by increasing glutathione levels. Glutathione is also the primary antioxidant in the CNS. NAC may protect against oxidative stress, chelate heavy metals, reduce inflammation, protect against mitochondrial dysfunction, inhibit apoptosis, and enhance neurogenesis, all potential pathophysiological processes that may contribute to depression.¹⁶

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (N = 574) considered patients with various depression diagnoses who were randomized to adjunctive NAC, 1,000 mg twice a day, or placebo. Over 12 to 24 weeks, there was a significantly greater improvement in mood symptoms and functionality with NAC vs placebo.¹⁶

Overall, NAC was well-tolerated. The most common AEs were GI symptoms, musculoskeletal complaints, decreased energy, and headache. While NAC has been touted as a potential adjunct therapy for several psychiatric disorders, including TRD, the evidence for benefit remains limited. Given its favorable AE profile, however, and over-the-counter availability, it remains an option for select patients. It is important to ask patients if they are already taking NAC.

Options beyond off-label medications

There are a multitude of options available for addressing TRD. Many FDA-approved medications are repurposed and prescribed off-label for other indications when the risk/benefit balance is favorable. In Part 1 of this article, we reviewed several off-label medications that have supportive controlled data for treating TRD. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional therapies for TRD, including herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

Bottom Line

Off-label medications that may offer benefit for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) include pimavanserin, antihypertensive agents, ketamine, scopolamine, botulinum toxin, mifepristone, estrogens, buprenorphine, and N-acetylcysteine. Although some evidence supports use of these agents as adjuncts for TRD, an individualized risk/benefit analysis is required.

Related Resource

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: How to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39.

Drug Brand Names

Amlodipine • Katerzia, Norvasc
Atenolol • Tenormin
Bisoprolol • Zebeta
Buprenorphine • Sublocade, Subutex
Carvedilol • Coreg
Enalapril • Vasotec
Esketamine • Spravato
Estradiol transdermal • Estraderm
Ketamine • Ketalar
Mifepristone • Mifeprex
Pimavanserin • Nuplazid
Progesterone • Prometrium
Propranolol • Inderal
Ramipril • Altace
Verapamil • Calan, Verelan

Presently, FDA-approved first-line treatments and standard adjunctive strategies (eg, lithium, thyroid supplementation, stimulants, second-generation antipsychotics) for major depressive disorder (MDD) often produce less-than-desired outcomes while carrying a potentially substantial safety and tolerability burden. The lack of clinically useful and individual-based biomarkers (eg, genetic, neurophysiological, imaging) is a major obstacle to enhancing treatment efficacy and/or decreasing associated adverse effects (AEs). While the discovery of such tools is being aggressively pursued and ultimately will facilitate a more precision-based choice of therapy, empirical strategies remain our primary approach.

In controlled trials, several nontraditional treatments used primarily as adjuncts to standard antidepressants have shown promise. These include “repurposed” (off-label) medications, herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

Importantly, some nontraditional treatments also demonstrate AEs (Table^1-16). With a careful consideration of the risk/benefit balance, this article reviews some of the better-studied treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). In Part 1, we will examine off-label medications. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional approaches to TRD, including herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

We believe this review will help clinicians who need to formulate a different approach after their patient with depression is not helped by traditional first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The potential options discussed in Part 1 of this article are categorized based on their putative mechanism of action (MOA) for depression.

Serotonergic and noradrenergic strategies

Pimavanserin is FDA-approved for treatment of Parkinson’s psychosis. Its potential MOA as an adjunctive strategy for MDD may involve 5-HT2A antagonist and inverse agonist receptor activity, as well as lesser effects at the 5-HT2Creceptor.

A 2-stage, 5-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) (CLARITY; N = 207) found adjunctive pimavanserin (34 mg/d) produced a robust antidepressant effect vs placebo in patients whose depression did not respond to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).¹ Furthermore, a secondary analysis of the data suggested that pimavanserin also improved sleepiness (P < .0003) and daily functioning (P < .014) at Week 5.²

Unfortunately, two 6-week, Phase III RCTs (CLARITY-2 and -3; N = 298) did not find a statistically significant difference between active treatment and placebo. This was based on change in the primary outcome measure (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 score) when adjunctive pimavanserin (34 mg/d) was added to an SSRI or SNRI in patients with TRD.³ There was, however, a significant difference favoring active treatment over placebo based on the Clinical Global Impression–Severity score.

Continue to: In these trials...

In these trials, pimavanserin was generally well-tolerated. The most common AEs were dry mouth, nausea, and headache. Pimavanserin has minimal activity at norepinephrine, dopamine, histamine, or acetylcholine receptors, thus avoiding AEs associated with these receptor interactions.

Given the mixed efficacy results of existing trials, further studies are needed to clarify this agent’s overall risk/benefit in the context of TRD.

Antihypertensive medications

Emerging data suggest that some beta-adrenergic blockers, angiotensin-inhibiting agents, and calcium antagonists are associated with a decreased incidence of depression. A large 2020 study (N = 3,747,190) used population-based Danish registries (2005 to 2015) to evaluate if any of the 41 most commonly prescribed antihypertensive medications were associated with the diagnosis of depressive disorder or use of antidepressants.⁴ These researchers found that enalapril, ramipril, amlodipine, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol (P < .001), and verapamil (P < .004) were strongly associated with a decreased risk of depression.⁴

Adverse effects across these different classes of antihypertensives are well characterized, can be substantial, and commonly are related to their impact on cardiovascular function (eg, hypotension). Clinically, these agents may be potential adjuncts for patients with TRD who need antihypertensive therapy. Their use and the choice of specific agent should only be determined in consultation with the patient’s primary care physician (PCP) or appropriate specialist.

Glutamatergic strategies

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic and analgesic. Its MOA for treating depression appears to occur primarily through antagonist activity at the N-methyl-D-aspartate ionotropic receptor of the glutamatergic system. There is preliminary evidence that its opioid receptor actions also may contribute to its antidepressant effect.⁵

Continue to: Many published studies...

Many published studies and reviews have described ketamine’s role for treating MDD. Several studies have reported that low-dose (0.5 mg/kg) IV ketamine infusions can rapidly attenuate severe episodes of MDD as well as associated suicidality. For example, a meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 368) comparing ketamine to placebo for acute treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression reported superior therapeutic effects with active treatment at 24 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days.⁶ The response and remission rates for ketamine were 52% and 21% at 24 hours; 48% and 24% at 72 hours; and 40% and 26% at 7 days, respectively.⁶

The most commonly reported AEs during the 4 hours after ketamine infusion included⁷:

• drowsiness, dizziness, poor coordination
• blurred vision, feeling strange or unreal
• hemodynamic changes (approximately 33%)
• small but significant (P < .05) increases in psychotomimetic and dissociative symptoms.

Because some individuals use ketamine recreationally, this agent also carries the risk of abuse.

Research is ongoing on strategies for long-term maintenance ketamine treatment, and the results of both short- and long-term trials will require careful scrutiny to better assess this agent’s safety and tolerability. Clinicians should first consider esketamine—the S-enantiomer of ketamine—because an intranasal formulation of this agent is FDA-approved for treating patients with TRD or MDD with suicidality when administered in a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy–certified setting.

Cholinergic strategies

Scopolamine is a potent muscarinic receptor antagonist used to prevent nausea and vomiting caused by motion sickness or medications used during surgery. Its use for MDD is based on the theory that muscarinic receptors may be hypersensitive in mood disorders.

Continue to: Several double-blind RCTs...

Several double-blind RCTs of patients with unipolar or bipolar depression that used 3 pulsed IV infusions (4.0 mcg/kg) over 15 minutes found a rapid, robust antidepressant effect with scopolamine vs placebo.^8,9 The oral formulation might also be effective, but would not have a rapid onset.

Common adverse effects of scopolamine include agitation, dry mouth, urinary retention, and cognitive clouding. Given scopolamine’s substantial AE profile, it should be considered only for patients with TRD who could also benefit from the oral formulation for the medical indications noted above, should generally be avoided in older patients, and should be prescribed in consultation with the patient’s PCP.

Botulinum toxin. This neurotoxin inhibits acetylcholine release. It is used to treat disorders characterized by abnormal muscular contraction, such as strabismus, blepharospasm, and chronic pain syndromes. Its MOA for depression may involve its paralytic effects after injection into the glabella forehead muscle (based on the facial feedback hypothesis), as well as modulation of neurotransmitters implicated in the pathophysiology of depression.

In several small trials, injectable botulinum toxin type A (BTA) (29 units) demonstrated antidepressant effects. A recent review that considered 6 trials (N = 235; 4 of the 6 studies were RCTs, 3 of which were rated as high quality) concluded that BTA may be a promising treatment for MDD.¹⁰ Limitations of this review included lack of a priori hypotheses, small sample sizes, gender bias, and difficulty in blinding.

In clinical trials, the most common AEs included local irritation at the injection site and transient headache. This agent’s relatively mild AE profile and possible overlap when used for some of the medical indications noted above opens its potential use as an adjunct in patients with comorbid TRD.

Continue to: Endocrine strategies

Endocrine strategies

Mifepristone (RU486). This anti-glucocorticoid receptor antagonist is used as an abortifacient. Based on the theory that hyperactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is implicated in the pathophysiology of MDD with psychotic features (psychotic depression), this agent has been studied as a treatment for this indication.

An analysis of 5 double-blind RCTs (N = 1,460) found that 7 days of mifepristone, 1,200 mg/d, was superior to placebo (P < .004) in reducing psychotic symptoms of depression.¹¹ Plasma concentrations ≥1,600 ng/mL may be required to maximize benefit.¹¹

Overall, this agent demonstrated a good safety profile in clinical trials, with treatment-emergent AEs reported in 556 (66.7%) patients who received mifepristone vs 386 (61.6%) patients who received placebo.¹¹ Common AEs included gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, headache, and dizziness. However, 3 deaths occurred: 2 patients who received mifepristone and 1 patient who received placebo. Given this potential for a fatal outcome, clinicians should first consider prescribing an adjunctive antipsychotic agent or electroconvulsive therapy.

Estrogens. These hormones are important for sexual and reproductive development and are used to treat various sexual/reproductive disorders, primarily in women. Their role in treating depression is based on the observation that perimenopause is accompanied by an increased risk of new and recurrent depression coincident with declining ovarian function.

Evidence supports the antidepressant efficacy of transdermal estradiol plus progesterone for perimenopausal depression, but not for postmenopausal depression.^12-14 However, estrogens carry significant risks that must be carefully considered in relationship to their potential benefits. These risks include:

• vaginal bleeding, dysmenorrhea
• fibroid enlargement
• galactorrhea
• ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, breast cancer
• deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism
• hypertension, chest pain, myocardial infarction, stroke.

Continue to: The use of estrogens...

The use of estrogens as an adjunctive therapy for women with treatment-resistant perimenopausal depression should only be undertaken when standard strategies have failed, and in consultation with an endocrine specialist who can monitor for potentially serious AEs.

Opioid medications

Buprenorphine is used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) as well as acute and chronic pain. The opioid system is involved in the regulation of mood and may be an appropriate target for novel antidepressants. The use of buprenorphine in combination with samidorphan (a preferential mu-opioid receptor antagonist) has shown initial promise for TRD while minimizing abuse potential.

Although earlier results were mixed, a pooled analysis of 2 recent large RCTs (N = 760) of patients with MDD who had not responded to antidepressants reported greater reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline for active treatment (buprenorphine/samidorphan; 2 mg/2 mg) vs placebo at multiple timepoints, including end of treatment (-1.8; P < .010).¹⁵

The most common AEs included nausea, constipation, dizziness, vomiting, somnolence, fatigue, and sedation. There was minimal evidence of abuse, dependence, or opioid withdrawal. Due to the opioid crisis in the United States, the resulting relaxation of regulations regarding prescribing buprenorphine, and the high rates of depression among patients with OUD, buprenorphine/samidorphan, which is an investigational agent that is not FDA-approved, may be particularly helpful for patients with OUD who also experience comorbid TRD.

Antioxidant agents

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is an amino acid that can treat acetaminophen toxicity and moderate hepatic damage by increasing glutathione levels. Glutathione is also the primary antioxidant in the CNS. NAC may protect against oxidative stress, chelate heavy metals, reduce inflammation, protect against mitochondrial dysfunction, inhibit apoptosis, and enhance neurogenesis, all potential pathophysiological processes that may contribute to depression.¹⁶

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (N = 574) considered patients with various depression diagnoses who were randomized to adjunctive NAC, 1,000 mg twice a day, or placebo. Over 12 to 24 weeks, there was a significantly greater improvement in mood symptoms and functionality with NAC vs placebo.¹⁶

Overall, NAC was well-tolerated. The most common AEs were GI symptoms, musculoskeletal complaints, decreased energy, and headache. While NAC has been touted as a potential adjunct therapy for several psychiatric disorders, including TRD, the evidence for benefit remains limited. Given its favorable AE profile, however, and over-the-counter availability, it remains an option for select patients. It is important to ask patients if they are already taking NAC.

Options beyond off-label medications

There are a multitude of options available for addressing TRD. Many FDA-approved medications are repurposed and prescribed off-label for other indications when the risk/benefit balance is favorable. In Part 1 of this article, we reviewed several off-label medications that have supportive controlled data for treating TRD. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional therapies for TRD, including herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

Bottom Line

Off-label medications that may offer benefit for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) include pimavanserin, antihypertensive agents, ketamine, scopolamine, botulinum toxin, mifepristone, estrogens, buprenorphine, and N-acetylcysteine. Although some evidence supports use of these agents as adjuncts for TRD, an individualized risk/benefit analysis is required.

Related Resource

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: How to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39.

Drug Brand Names

Amlodipine • Katerzia, Norvasc
Atenolol • Tenormin
Bisoprolol • Zebeta
Buprenorphine • Sublocade, Subutex
Carvedilol • Coreg
Enalapril • Vasotec
Esketamine • Spravato
Estradiol transdermal • Estraderm
Ketamine • Ketalar
Mifepristone • Mifeprex
Pimavanserin • Nuplazid
Progesterone • Prometrium
Propranolol • Inderal
Ramipril • Altace
Verapamil • Calan, Verelan

Presently, FDA-approved first-line treatments and standard adjunctive strategies (eg, lithium, thyroid supplementation, stimulants, second-generation antipsychotics) for major depressive disorder (MDD) often produce less-than-desired outcomes while carrying a potentially substantial safety and tolerability burden. The lack of clinically useful and individual-based biomarkers (eg, genetic, neurophysiological, imaging) is a major obstacle to enhancing treatment efficacy and/or decreasing associated adverse effects (AEs). While the discovery of such tools is being aggressively pursued and ultimately will facilitate a more precision-based choice of therapy, empirical strategies remain our primary approach.

In controlled trials, several nontraditional treatments used primarily as adjuncts to standard antidepressants have shown promise. These include “repurposed” (off-label) medications, herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

Importantly, some nontraditional treatments also demonstrate AEs (Table^1-16). With a careful consideration of the risk/benefit balance, this article reviews some of the better-studied treatment options for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). In Part 1, we will examine off-label medications. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional approaches to TRD, including herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

We believe this review will help clinicians who need to formulate a different approach after their patient with depression is not helped by traditional first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The potential options discussed in Part 1 of this article are categorized based on their putative mechanism of action (MOA) for depression.

Serotonergic and noradrenergic strategies

Pimavanserin is FDA-approved for treatment of Parkinson’s psychosis. Its potential MOA as an adjunctive strategy for MDD may involve 5-HT2A antagonist and inverse agonist receptor activity, as well as lesser effects at the 5-HT2Creceptor.

A 2-stage, 5-week randomized controlled trial (RCT) (CLARITY; N = 207) found adjunctive pimavanserin (34 mg/d) produced a robust antidepressant effect vs placebo in patients whose depression did not respond to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs).¹ Furthermore, a secondary analysis of the data suggested that pimavanserin also improved sleepiness (P < .0003) and daily functioning (P < .014) at Week 5.²

Unfortunately, two 6-week, Phase III RCTs (CLARITY-2 and -3; N = 298) did not find a statistically significant difference between active treatment and placebo. This was based on change in the primary outcome measure (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-17 score) when adjunctive pimavanserin (34 mg/d) was added to an SSRI or SNRI in patients with TRD.³ There was, however, a significant difference favoring active treatment over placebo based on the Clinical Global Impression–Severity score.

Continue to: In these trials...

In these trials, pimavanserin was generally well-tolerated. The most common AEs were dry mouth, nausea, and headache. Pimavanserin has minimal activity at norepinephrine, dopamine, histamine, or acetylcholine receptors, thus avoiding AEs associated with these receptor interactions.

Given the mixed efficacy results of existing trials, further studies are needed to clarify this agent’s overall risk/benefit in the context of TRD.

Antihypertensive medications

Emerging data suggest that some beta-adrenergic blockers, angiotensin-inhibiting agents, and calcium antagonists are associated with a decreased incidence of depression. A large 2020 study (N = 3,747,190) used population-based Danish registries (2005 to 2015) to evaluate if any of the 41 most commonly prescribed antihypertensive medications were associated with the diagnosis of depressive disorder or use of antidepressants.⁴ These researchers found that enalapril, ramipril, amlodipine, propranolol, atenolol, bisoprolol, carvedilol (P < .001), and verapamil (P < .004) were strongly associated with a decreased risk of depression.⁴

Adverse effects across these different classes of antihypertensives are well characterized, can be substantial, and commonly are related to their impact on cardiovascular function (eg, hypotension). Clinically, these agents may be potential adjuncts for patients with TRD who need antihypertensive therapy. Their use and the choice of specific agent should only be determined in consultation with the patient’s primary care physician (PCP) or appropriate specialist.

Glutamatergic strategies

Ketamine is a dissociative anesthetic and analgesic. Its MOA for treating depression appears to occur primarily through antagonist activity at the N-methyl-D-aspartate ionotropic receptor of the glutamatergic system. There is preliminary evidence that its opioid receptor actions also may contribute to its antidepressant effect.⁵

Continue to: Many published studies...

Many published studies and reviews have described ketamine’s role for treating MDD. Several studies have reported that low-dose (0.5 mg/kg) IV ketamine infusions can rapidly attenuate severe episodes of MDD as well as associated suicidality. For example, a meta-analysis of 9 RCTs (N = 368) comparing ketamine to placebo for acute treatment of unipolar and bipolar depression reported superior therapeutic effects with active treatment at 24 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days.⁶ The response and remission rates for ketamine were 52% and 21% at 24 hours; 48% and 24% at 72 hours; and 40% and 26% at 7 days, respectively.⁶

The most commonly reported AEs during the 4 hours after ketamine infusion included⁷:

• drowsiness, dizziness, poor coordination
• blurred vision, feeling strange or unreal
• hemodynamic changes (approximately 33%)
• small but significant (P < .05) increases in psychotomimetic and dissociative symptoms.

Because some individuals use ketamine recreationally, this agent also carries the risk of abuse.

Research is ongoing on strategies for long-term maintenance ketamine treatment, and the results of both short- and long-term trials will require careful scrutiny to better assess this agent’s safety and tolerability. Clinicians should first consider esketamine—the S-enantiomer of ketamine—because an intranasal formulation of this agent is FDA-approved for treating patients with TRD or MDD with suicidality when administered in a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy–certified setting.

Cholinergic strategies

Scopolamine is a potent muscarinic receptor antagonist used to prevent nausea and vomiting caused by motion sickness or medications used during surgery. Its use for MDD is based on the theory that muscarinic receptors may be hypersensitive in mood disorders.

Continue to: Several double-blind RCTs...

Several double-blind RCTs of patients with unipolar or bipolar depression that used 3 pulsed IV infusions (4.0 mcg/kg) over 15 minutes found a rapid, robust antidepressant effect with scopolamine vs placebo.^8,9 The oral formulation might also be effective, but would not have a rapid onset.

Common adverse effects of scopolamine include agitation, dry mouth, urinary retention, and cognitive clouding. Given scopolamine’s substantial AE profile, it should be considered only for patients with TRD who could also benefit from the oral formulation for the medical indications noted above, should generally be avoided in older patients, and should be prescribed in consultation with the patient’s PCP.

Botulinum toxin. This neurotoxin inhibits acetylcholine release. It is used to treat disorders characterized by abnormal muscular contraction, such as strabismus, blepharospasm, and chronic pain syndromes. Its MOA for depression may involve its paralytic effects after injection into the glabella forehead muscle (based on the facial feedback hypothesis), as well as modulation of neurotransmitters implicated in the pathophysiology of depression.

In several small trials, injectable botulinum toxin type A (BTA) (29 units) demonstrated antidepressant effects. A recent review that considered 6 trials (N = 235; 4 of the 6 studies were RCTs, 3 of which were rated as high quality) concluded that BTA may be a promising treatment for MDD.¹⁰ Limitations of this review included lack of a priori hypotheses, small sample sizes, gender bias, and difficulty in blinding.

In clinical trials, the most common AEs included local irritation at the injection site and transient headache. This agent’s relatively mild AE profile and possible overlap when used for some of the medical indications noted above opens its potential use as an adjunct in patients with comorbid TRD.

Continue to: Endocrine strategies

Endocrine strategies

Mifepristone (RU486). This anti-glucocorticoid receptor antagonist is used as an abortifacient. Based on the theory that hyperactivity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is implicated in the pathophysiology of MDD with psychotic features (psychotic depression), this agent has been studied as a treatment for this indication.

An analysis of 5 double-blind RCTs (N = 1,460) found that 7 days of mifepristone, 1,200 mg/d, was superior to placebo (P < .004) in reducing psychotic symptoms of depression.¹¹ Plasma concentrations ≥1,600 ng/mL may be required to maximize benefit.¹¹

Overall, this agent demonstrated a good safety profile in clinical trials, with treatment-emergent AEs reported in 556 (66.7%) patients who received mifepristone vs 386 (61.6%) patients who received placebo.¹¹ Common AEs included gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, headache, and dizziness. However, 3 deaths occurred: 2 patients who received mifepristone and 1 patient who received placebo. Given this potential for a fatal outcome, clinicians should first consider prescribing an adjunctive antipsychotic agent or electroconvulsive therapy.

Estrogens. These hormones are important for sexual and reproductive development and are used to treat various sexual/reproductive disorders, primarily in women. Their role in treating depression is based on the observation that perimenopause is accompanied by an increased risk of new and recurrent depression coincident with declining ovarian function.

Evidence supports the antidepressant efficacy of transdermal estradiol plus progesterone for perimenopausal depression, but not for postmenopausal depression.^12-14 However, estrogens carry significant risks that must be carefully considered in relationship to their potential benefits. These risks include:

• vaginal bleeding, dysmenorrhea
• fibroid enlargement
• galactorrhea
• ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, breast cancer
• deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism
• hypertension, chest pain, myocardial infarction, stroke.

Continue to: The use of estrogens...

The use of estrogens as an adjunctive therapy for women with treatment-resistant perimenopausal depression should only be undertaken when standard strategies have failed, and in consultation with an endocrine specialist who can monitor for potentially serious AEs.

Opioid medications

Buprenorphine is used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) as well as acute and chronic pain. The opioid system is involved in the regulation of mood and may be an appropriate target for novel antidepressants. The use of buprenorphine in combination with samidorphan (a preferential mu-opioid receptor antagonist) has shown initial promise for TRD while minimizing abuse potential.

Although earlier results were mixed, a pooled analysis of 2 recent large RCTs (N = 760) of patients with MDD who had not responded to antidepressants reported greater reduction in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline for active treatment (buprenorphine/samidorphan; 2 mg/2 mg) vs placebo at multiple timepoints, including end of treatment (-1.8; P < .010).¹⁵

The most common AEs included nausea, constipation, dizziness, vomiting, somnolence, fatigue, and sedation. There was minimal evidence of abuse, dependence, or opioid withdrawal. Due to the opioid crisis in the United States, the resulting relaxation of regulations regarding prescribing buprenorphine, and the high rates of depression among patients with OUD, buprenorphine/samidorphan, which is an investigational agent that is not FDA-approved, may be particularly helpful for patients with OUD who also experience comorbid TRD.

Antioxidant agents

N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is an amino acid that can treat acetaminophen toxicity and moderate hepatic damage by increasing glutathione levels. Glutathione is also the primary antioxidant in the CNS. NAC may protect against oxidative stress, chelate heavy metals, reduce inflammation, protect against mitochondrial dysfunction, inhibit apoptosis, and enhance neurogenesis, all potential pathophysiological processes that may contribute to depression.¹⁶

Continue to: A systematic review...

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 5 RCTs (N = 574) considered patients with various depression diagnoses who were randomized to adjunctive NAC, 1,000 mg twice a day, or placebo. Over 12 to 24 weeks, there was a significantly greater improvement in mood symptoms and functionality with NAC vs placebo.¹⁶

Overall, NAC was well-tolerated. The most common AEs were GI symptoms, musculoskeletal complaints, decreased energy, and headache. While NAC has been touted as a potential adjunct therapy for several psychiatric disorders, including TRD, the evidence for benefit remains limited. Given its favorable AE profile, however, and over-the-counter availability, it remains an option for select patients. It is important to ask patients if they are already taking NAC.

Options beyond off-label medications

There are a multitude of options available for addressing TRD. Many FDA-approved medications are repurposed and prescribed off-label for other indications when the risk/benefit balance is favorable. In Part 1 of this article, we reviewed several off-label medications that have supportive controlled data for treating TRD. In Part 2, we will review other nontraditional therapies for TRD, including herbal/nutraceuticals, anti-inflammatory/immune system therapies, device-based treatments, and other alternative approaches.

Bottom Line

Off-label medications that may offer benefit for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) include pimavanserin, antihypertensive agents, ketamine, scopolamine, botulinum toxin, mifepristone, estrogens, buprenorphine, and N-acetylcysteine. Although some evidence supports use of these agents as adjuncts for TRD, an individualized risk/benefit analysis is required.

Related Resource

• Joshi KG, Frierson RL. Off-label prescribing: How to limit your liability. Current Psychiatry. 2020;19(9):12,39.

Drug Brand Names

Amlodipine • Katerzia, Norvasc
Atenolol • Tenormin
Bisoprolol • Zebeta
Buprenorphine • Sublocade, Subutex
Carvedilol • Coreg
Enalapril • Vasotec
Esketamine • Spravato
Estradiol transdermal • Estraderm
Ketamine • Ketalar
Mifepristone • Mifeprex
Pimavanserin • Nuplazid
Progesterone • Prometrium
Propranolol • Inderal
Ramipril • Altace
Verapamil • Calan, Verelan

Mrs. W, age 35, presents to your clinic seeking treatment for anxiety and depression. She has no psychiatric history but reports feeling sad, overwhelmed, and stressed. Mrs. W has been married for 10 years, has 2 young children, and is currently pregnant. She recently discovered that her husband has been having an affair. Mrs. W tells you that she feels her marriage is unsalvageable and would like to ask her husband for a divorce, but worries that he will “put up a fight” and demand full custody of their children. When you ask why, she states that her husband is “pretty narcissistic” and tends to become combative when criticized or threatened, such as a recent discussion they had about his affair that ended with him concluding that if she were “sexier and more confident” he would not have cheated on her.

As Mrs. W is talking, you recall a conversation you recently overheard at a continuing medical education event. Two clinicians were discussing how their records had been subpoenaed in a child custody case, even though the patient’s mental health was not contested. You realize that Mrs. W’s situation may also fit under this exception to confidentiality or privilege. You wonder if you should have disclosed this possibility to her at the outset of your session and wonder what you should say now, because she is clearly in distress and in need of psychiatric treatment. On the other hand, you want her to be fully informed of the potential repercussions if she continues with treatment.

Confidentiality and privilege allow our patients to disclose sensitive details in a safe space. The psychiatrist’s duty is to keep the patient’s information confidential, except in limited circumstances. The patient’s privilege is their right to prevent someone in a special confidential relationship from testifying against them or releasing their private records. In certain instances, a patient may waive or be forced to waive privilege, and a psychiatrist may be compelled to testify or release treatment records to a court. This article reviews exceptions to confidentiality and privilege, focusing specifically on a little-known exception to privilege that arises in divorce and child custody cases. We discuss relevant legislation and provide recommendations for psychiatrists to better understand how to discuss these legal realities with patients who are or may go through a divorce or child custody case.

Understanding confidentiality and privilege

Confidentiality and privilege are related but distinct concepts. Confidentiality relates to the overall trusting relationship created between 2 parties, such as a physician and their patient, and the duty on the part of the trusted individual to keep information private. Privilege refers to a person’s specific legal right to prevent someone in that confidential, trusting relationship from testifying against them in court or releasing confidential records. Privilege is owned by the patient and must be asserted or waived by the patient in legal proceedings. The concepts of confidentiality and privilege are crucial in creating an open, candid therapeutic environment. Many courts, including the US Supreme Court,¹ have recognized the importance of confidentiality and privilege in establishing a positive therapeutic relationship between a psychotherapist and a patient. Without confidentiality and privilege, patients would be less likely to share sensitive yet clinically important information.

Commonly encountered exceptions to confidentiality (Table 1²) and privilege (Table 2) exist in medical practice. Psychiatrists should discuss these exceptions with patients at the outset of clinical treatment. A little-known exception to privilege that may compel a psychiatrist to disclose confidential records can occur in child custody proceedings. In certain states, the mere filing of a child custody claim constitutes an exception to physician-patient privilege. In these states, the parent filing for divorce and custody may automatically waive privilege and thus compel disclosure of psychiatric records, even if their mental health is not in question. The following recent Ohio Supreme Court case illustrates this exception.

Friedenberg v Friedenberg (2020)

Friedenberg v Friedenberg³ addressed the issue of privilege and release of mental health treatment records in custody disputes. Belinda Torres Friedenberg and Keith Friedenberg were married with 4 minor children. Mrs. Friedenberg filed for divorce in 2016, requesting custody of the children and spousal support. In response, Mr. Friedenberg also filed a complaint seeking custody. Mr. Friedenberg subpoenaed mental health treatment records for Mrs. Friedenberg, who responded by filing a request to prevent the release of these records given physician-patient privilege. Mr. Friedenberg argued that Mrs. Friedenberg had placed her physical and mental health at issue when she filed for divorce and custody. At no point did Mr. Friedenberg allege that Mrs. Friedenberg’s mental health made her an unfit parent. The court agreed with Mr. Friedenberg and compelled disclosure of Mrs. Friedenberg’s psychiatric records, stating it is “hard to imagine a scenario where the mental health records of a parent would not be relevant to issues around custody and the best interests of the children.” The judge reviewed Mrs. Friedenberg’s psychiatric records privately and released records deemed relevant to the custody proceedings. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed with this approach, holding that a parent’s mental fitness is always an issue in child custody cases, even if not asserted by either party. The court further held that unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information was prevented by the judge’s private review of records before deciding which records to release to the opposing spouse.

Waiver of physician-patient privilege

Waiver of physician-patient privilege in custody and divorce proceedings varies by state (Table 3^3-6). The Friedenberg decision highlights the most restrictive approach, where the mere filing of a divorce and child custody request automatically waives privilege. Some states, such as Indiana,⁴ follow a similar scheme to Ohio. Other states are silent on this issue or explicitly prohibit a waiver of privilege, asserting that custody disputes alone do not trigger disclosure without additional justifications, such as aberrant parental behaviors or other historical information concerning for abuse, neglect, or lack of parental fitness, or if a parent places their mental health at issue.⁷

Continue to: Once privilege is waived...

Once privilege is waived, the next step is to determine who should examine psychiatric records, deem relevance, and disclose sensitive information to the court and the opposing party. A judge may make this determination, as in the Friedenberg case. Alternatively, an independent psychiatric examiner may be appointed by the court to examine one or both parties; to obtain collateral information, including psychiatric records; and to submit a report to the court with medicolegal opinions regarding parental fitness. For example, in Maryland,⁶ the mere filing of a custody suit does not waive privilege. If a parent’s mental health is questioned, the judge may order an independent psychiatric examination to determine the parent’s fitness, thus balancing the best interests of the child with the parent’s right to physician-patient privilege.

The problem with automatic waivers

The foundation of the physician-patient relationship is trust and confidentiality. While this holds true for every specialty, perhaps it is even more important in psychiatry, where our patients routinely disclose sensitive, personal information in hopes of healing. Patients may not be aware of exceptions to confidentiality, or only be aware of the most well-known exceptions, such as the clinician’s duty to report abuse, or to warn a third party about risk of harm by a patient. Furthermore, clinicians and patients alike may not be aware of less-common exceptions to privilege, such as those that may occur in custody proceedings. This is critically important in light of the high number of patients who are or may be seeking divorce and custody of their children.

As psychiatric clinicians, it is highly likely that we will see patients going through divorce and custody proceedings. In 2018, there were 2.24 marriages for every divorce,⁸ and in 2014, 27% of all American children were living with a custodial parent, with the other parent living elsewhere.⁹ Divorce can be a profoundly stressful time; thus, it would be expected that many individuals going through divorce would seek psychiatric treatment and support.

Our concern is that the Friedenberg approach, which results in automatic disclosure of sensitive mental health information when a party files for divorce and custody, could deter patients from seeking psychiatric treatment, especially those anticipating divorce. Importantly, because women are nearly twice as likely as men to experience depression and anxiety¹⁰ and are more likely to seek treatment, this approach could disproportionately impact them.¹¹ In general, an automatic waiver policy may create an additional obstacle for individuals who are already reticent to seek treatment.

How to handle these situations

As a psychiatrist, you should be familiar with your state’s laws regarding exceptions to patient-physician privilege, and should discuss exceptions at the outset of treatment. However, you will need to weigh the potential negative impacts of this information on the therapeutic relationship, including possible early termination. Furthermore, this information may impact a patient’s willingness to disclose all relevant information to mental health treatment if there is concern for later court disclosure. How should you balance these concerns? First, encourage patients to ask questions and raise concerns about confidentiality and privilege.¹² In addition, you may direct the patient to other resources, such as a family law attorney, if they have questions about how certain information may be used in a legal proceeding.

Continue to: Second, you should be...

Second, you should be transparent regarding documentation of psychiatric visits. While documentation must meet ethical, legal, and billing requirements, you should take care to include only relevant information needed to make a diagnosis and provide indicated treatment while maintaining a neutral tone and avoiding medical jargon.¹³ For instance, we frequently use the term “denied” in medical documentation, as in “Mr. X denied cough, sore throat, fever or chills.” However, in psychiatric notes, if a patient “denied alcohol use,” the colloquial interpretation of this word could imply a tone of distrust toward the patient. A more sensitive way to document this might be: “When screened, reported no alcohol use.” If a patient divulges information and then asks you to omit this from their chart, but you do not feel comfortable doing so, explain what and why you must include the information in the chart.¹⁴

Third, if you receive a subpoena or other document requesting privileged information, first contact the patient and inform them of the request, and then seek legal consultation through your employer or malpractice insurer.¹⁵ Not all subpoenas are valid and enforceable, so it is important for an attorney to examine the subpoena; in addition, the patient’s attorney may choose to challenge the subpoena and limit the disclosure of privileged information.

Finally, inform legislatures and courts about the potential harm of automatic waivers in custody proceedings. A judge’s examination of the psychiatric records, as in Friedenberg, is not an adequate safeguard. A judge is not a trained mental health professional and may deem “relevant” information to be nearly everything: a history of abuse, remote drug or alcohol use, disclosure of a past crime, or financial troubles. We advocate for courts to follow the Maryland model, where a spouse does not automatically waive privilege if filing for divorce or custody. If mental health becomes an issue in a case, then the court may seek an independent psychiatric examination. The independent examiner will have access to patient records but will be in a better position to determine which details are relevant in determining diagnosis and parental fitness, and to render an opinion to the court.

CASE CONTINUED

You inform Mrs. W about a possible exception to privilege in divorce and custody cases. She decides to first talk with a family law attorney before proceeding with treatment. You defer your diagnosis and wait to see if she wants to proceed with treatment. Unfortunately, she does not return to your office.

Bottom Line

Some states limit the confidentiality and privilege of parents who are in psychiatric treatment and also involved in divorce and child custody cases. Psychiatrists should be mindful of these exceptions, and discuss them with patients at the onset of treatment.

Related Resources

• Legal Information Institute. Child custody: an overview. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/child_custody
• Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, et al. Child custody in divorce. In: Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, et al. Psychological evaluations for the courts. Guilford Press; 2018:530-533.

Mrs. W, age 35, presents to your clinic seeking treatment for anxiety and depression. She has no psychiatric history but reports feeling sad, overwhelmed, and stressed. Mrs. W has been married for 10 years, has 2 young children, and is currently pregnant. She recently discovered that her husband has been having an affair. Mrs. W tells you that she feels her marriage is unsalvageable and would like to ask her husband for a divorce, but worries that he will “put up a fight” and demand full custody of their children. When you ask why, she states that her husband is “pretty narcissistic” and tends to become combative when criticized or threatened, such as a recent discussion they had about his affair that ended with him concluding that if she were “sexier and more confident” he would not have cheated on her.

As Mrs. W is talking, you recall a conversation you recently overheard at a continuing medical education event. Two clinicians were discussing how their records had been subpoenaed in a child custody case, even though the patient’s mental health was not contested. You realize that Mrs. W’s situation may also fit under this exception to confidentiality or privilege. You wonder if you should have disclosed this possibility to her at the outset of your session and wonder what you should say now, because she is clearly in distress and in need of psychiatric treatment. On the other hand, you want her to be fully informed of the potential repercussions if she continues with treatment.

Confidentiality and privilege allow our patients to disclose sensitive details in a safe space. The psychiatrist’s duty is to keep the patient’s information confidential, except in limited circumstances. The patient’s privilege is their right to prevent someone in a special confidential relationship from testifying against them or releasing their private records. In certain instances, a patient may waive or be forced to waive privilege, and a psychiatrist may be compelled to testify or release treatment records to a court. This article reviews exceptions to confidentiality and privilege, focusing specifically on a little-known exception to privilege that arises in divorce and child custody cases. We discuss relevant legislation and provide recommendations for psychiatrists to better understand how to discuss these legal realities with patients who are or may go through a divorce or child custody case.

Understanding confidentiality and privilege

Confidentiality and privilege are related but distinct concepts. Confidentiality relates to the overall trusting relationship created between 2 parties, such as a physician and their patient, and the duty on the part of the trusted individual to keep information private. Privilege refers to a person’s specific legal right to prevent someone in that confidential, trusting relationship from testifying against them in court or releasing confidential records. Privilege is owned by the patient and must be asserted or waived by the patient in legal proceedings. The concepts of confidentiality and privilege are crucial in creating an open, candid therapeutic environment. Many courts, including the US Supreme Court,¹ have recognized the importance of confidentiality and privilege in establishing a positive therapeutic relationship between a psychotherapist and a patient. Without confidentiality and privilege, patients would be less likely to share sensitive yet clinically important information.

Commonly encountered exceptions to confidentiality (Table 1²) and privilege (Table 2) exist in medical practice. Psychiatrists should discuss these exceptions with patients at the outset of clinical treatment. A little-known exception to privilege that may compel a psychiatrist to disclose confidential records can occur in child custody proceedings. In certain states, the mere filing of a child custody claim constitutes an exception to physician-patient privilege. In these states, the parent filing for divorce and custody may automatically waive privilege and thus compel disclosure of psychiatric records, even if their mental health is not in question. The following recent Ohio Supreme Court case illustrates this exception.

Friedenberg v Friedenberg (2020)

Friedenberg v Friedenberg³ addressed the issue of privilege and release of mental health treatment records in custody disputes. Belinda Torres Friedenberg and Keith Friedenberg were married with 4 minor children. Mrs. Friedenberg filed for divorce in 2016, requesting custody of the children and spousal support. In response, Mr. Friedenberg also filed a complaint seeking custody. Mr. Friedenberg subpoenaed mental health treatment records for Mrs. Friedenberg, who responded by filing a request to prevent the release of these records given physician-patient privilege. Mr. Friedenberg argued that Mrs. Friedenberg had placed her physical and mental health at issue when she filed for divorce and custody. At no point did Mr. Friedenberg allege that Mrs. Friedenberg’s mental health made her an unfit parent. The court agreed with Mr. Friedenberg and compelled disclosure of Mrs. Friedenberg’s psychiatric records, stating it is “hard to imagine a scenario where the mental health records of a parent would not be relevant to issues around custody and the best interests of the children.” The judge reviewed Mrs. Friedenberg’s psychiatric records privately and released records deemed relevant to the custody proceedings. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed with this approach, holding that a parent’s mental fitness is always an issue in child custody cases, even if not asserted by either party. The court further held that unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information was prevented by the judge’s private review of records before deciding which records to release to the opposing spouse.

Waiver of physician-patient privilege

Waiver of physician-patient privilege in custody and divorce proceedings varies by state (Table 3^3-6). The Friedenberg decision highlights the most restrictive approach, where the mere filing of a divorce and child custody request automatically waives privilege. Some states, such as Indiana,⁴ follow a similar scheme to Ohio. Other states are silent on this issue or explicitly prohibit a waiver of privilege, asserting that custody disputes alone do not trigger disclosure without additional justifications, such as aberrant parental behaviors or other historical information concerning for abuse, neglect, or lack of parental fitness, or if a parent places their mental health at issue.⁷

Continue to: Once privilege is waived...

Once privilege is waived, the next step is to determine who should examine psychiatric records, deem relevance, and disclose sensitive information to the court and the opposing party. A judge may make this determination, as in the Friedenberg case. Alternatively, an independent psychiatric examiner may be appointed by the court to examine one or both parties; to obtain collateral information, including psychiatric records; and to submit a report to the court with medicolegal opinions regarding parental fitness. For example, in Maryland,⁶ the mere filing of a custody suit does not waive privilege. If a parent’s mental health is questioned, the judge may order an independent psychiatric examination to determine the parent’s fitness, thus balancing the best interests of the child with the parent’s right to physician-patient privilege.

The problem with automatic waivers

The foundation of the physician-patient relationship is trust and confidentiality. While this holds true for every specialty, perhaps it is even more important in psychiatry, where our patients routinely disclose sensitive, personal information in hopes of healing. Patients may not be aware of exceptions to confidentiality, or only be aware of the most well-known exceptions, such as the clinician’s duty to report abuse, or to warn a third party about risk of harm by a patient. Furthermore, clinicians and patients alike may not be aware of less-common exceptions to privilege, such as those that may occur in custody proceedings. This is critically important in light of the high number of patients who are or may be seeking divorce and custody of their children.

As psychiatric clinicians, it is highly likely that we will see patients going through divorce and custody proceedings. In 2018, there were 2.24 marriages for every divorce,⁸ and in 2014, 27% of all American children were living with a custodial parent, with the other parent living elsewhere.⁹ Divorce can be a profoundly stressful time; thus, it would be expected that many individuals going through divorce would seek psychiatric treatment and support.

Our concern is that the Friedenberg approach, which results in automatic disclosure of sensitive mental health information when a party files for divorce and custody, could deter patients from seeking psychiatric treatment, especially those anticipating divorce. Importantly, because women are nearly twice as likely as men to experience depression and anxiety¹⁰ and are more likely to seek treatment, this approach could disproportionately impact them.¹¹ In general, an automatic waiver policy may create an additional obstacle for individuals who are already reticent to seek treatment.

How to handle these situations

As a psychiatrist, you should be familiar with your state’s laws regarding exceptions to patient-physician privilege, and should discuss exceptions at the outset of treatment. However, you will need to weigh the potential negative impacts of this information on the therapeutic relationship, including possible early termination. Furthermore, this information may impact a patient’s willingness to disclose all relevant information to mental health treatment if there is concern for later court disclosure. How should you balance these concerns? First, encourage patients to ask questions and raise concerns about confidentiality and privilege.¹² In addition, you may direct the patient to other resources, such as a family law attorney, if they have questions about how certain information may be used in a legal proceeding.

Continue to: Second, you should be...

Second, you should be transparent regarding documentation of psychiatric visits. While documentation must meet ethical, legal, and billing requirements, you should take care to include only relevant information needed to make a diagnosis and provide indicated treatment while maintaining a neutral tone and avoiding medical jargon.¹³ For instance, we frequently use the term “denied” in medical documentation, as in “Mr. X denied cough, sore throat, fever or chills.” However, in psychiatric notes, if a patient “denied alcohol use,” the colloquial interpretation of this word could imply a tone of distrust toward the patient. A more sensitive way to document this might be: “When screened, reported no alcohol use.” If a patient divulges information and then asks you to omit this from their chart, but you do not feel comfortable doing so, explain what and why you must include the information in the chart.¹⁴

Third, if you receive a subpoena or other document requesting privileged information, first contact the patient and inform them of the request, and then seek legal consultation through your employer or malpractice insurer.¹⁵ Not all subpoenas are valid and enforceable, so it is important for an attorney to examine the subpoena; in addition, the patient’s attorney may choose to challenge the subpoena and limit the disclosure of privileged information.

Finally, inform legislatures and courts about the potential harm of automatic waivers in custody proceedings. A judge’s examination of the psychiatric records, as in Friedenberg, is not an adequate safeguard. A judge is not a trained mental health professional and may deem “relevant” information to be nearly everything: a history of abuse, remote drug or alcohol use, disclosure of a past crime, or financial troubles. We advocate for courts to follow the Maryland model, where a spouse does not automatically waive privilege if filing for divorce or custody. If mental health becomes an issue in a case, then the court may seek an independent psychiatric examination. The independent examiner will have access to patient records but will be in a better position to determine which details are relevant in determining diagnosis and parental fitness, and to render an opinion to the court.

CASE CONTINUED

You inform Mrs. W about a possible exception to privilege in divorce and custody cases. She decides to first talk with a family law attorney before proceeding with treatment. You defer your diagnosis and wait to see if she wants to proceed with treatment. Unfortunately, she does not return to your office.

Bottom Line

Some states limit the confidentiality and privilege of parents who are in psychiatric treatment and also involved in divorce and child custody cases. Psychiatrists should be mindful of these exceptions, and discuss them with patients at the onset of treatment.

Related Resources

• Legal Information Institute. Child custody: an overview. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/child_custody
• Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, et al. Child custody in divorce. In: Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, et al. Psychological evaluations for the courts. Guilford Press; 2018:530-533.

Mrs. W, age 35, presents to your clinic seeking treatment for anxiety and depression. She has no psychiatric history but reports feeling sad, overwhelmed, and stressed. Mrs. W has been married for 10 years, has 2 young children, and is currently pregnant. She recently discovered that her husband has been having an affair. Mrs. W tells you that she feels her marriage is unsalvageable and would like to ask her husband for a divorce, but worries that he will “put up a fight” and demand full custody of their children. When you ask why, she states that her husband is “pretty narcissistic” and tends to become combative when criticized or threatened, such as a recent discussion they had about his affair that ended with him concluding that if she were “sexier and more confident” he would not have cheated on her.

As Mrs. W is talking, you recall a conversation you recently overheard at a continuing medical education event. Two clinicians were discussing how their records had been subpoenaed in a child custody case, even though the patient’s mental health was not contested. You realize that Mrs. W’s situation may also fit under this exception to confidentiality or privilege. You wonder if you should have disclosed this possibility to her at the outset of your session and wonder what you should say now, because she is clearly in distress and in need of psychiatric treatment. On the other hand, you want her to be fully informed of the potential repercussions if she continues with treatment.

Confidentiality and privilege allow our patients to disclose sensitive details in a safe space. The psychiatrist’s duty is to keep the patient’s information confidential, except in limited circumstances. The patient’s privilege is their right to prevent someone in a special confidential relationship from testifying against them or releasing their private records. In certain instances, a patient may waive or be forced to waive privilege, and a psychiatrist may be compelled to testify or release treatment records to a court. This article reviews exceptions to confidentiality and privilege, focusing specifically on a little-known exception to privilege that arises in divorce and child custody cases. We discuss relevant legislation and provide recommendations for psychiatrists to better understand how to discuss these legal realities with patients who are or may go through a divorce or child custody case.

Understanding confidentiality and privilege

Confidentiality and privilege are related but distinct concepts. Confidentiality relates to the overall trusting relationship created between 2 parties, such as a physician and their patient, and the duty on the part of the trusted individual to keep information private. Privilege refers to a person’s specific legal right to prevent someone in that confidential, trusting relationship from testifying against them in court or releasing confidential records. Privilege is owned by the patient and must be asserted or waived by the patient in legal proceedings. The concepts of confidentiality and privilege are crucial in creating an open, candid therapeutic environment. Many courts, including the US Supreme Court,¹ have recognized the importance of confidentiality and privilege in establishing a positive therapeutic relationship between a psychotherapist and a patient. Without confidentiality and privilege, patients would be less likely to share sensitive yet clinically important information.

Commonly encountered exceptions to confidentiality (Table 1²) and privilege (Table 2) exist in medical practice. Psychiatrists should discuss these exceptions with patients at the outset of clinical treatment. A little-known exception to privilege that may compel a psychiatrist to disclose confidential records can occur in child custody proceedings. In certain states, the mere filing of a child custody claim constitutes an exception to physician-patient privilege. In these states, the parent filing for divorce and custody may automatically waive privilege and thus compel disclosure of psychiatric records, even if their mental health is not in question. The following recent Ohio Supreme Court case illustrates this exception.

Friedenberg v Friedenberg (2020)

Friedenberg v Friedenberg³ addressed the issue of privilege and release of mental health treatment records in custody disputes. Belinda Torres Friedenberg and Keith Friedenberg were married with 4 minor children. Mrs. Friedenberg filed for divorce in 2016, requesting custody of the children and spousal support. In response, Mr. Friedenberg also filed a complaint seeking custody. Mr. Friedenberg subpoenaed mental health treatment records for Mrs. Friedenberg, who responded by filing a request to prevent the release of these records given physician-patient privilege. Mr. Friedenberg argued that Mrs. Friedenberg had placed her physical and mental health at issue when she filed for divorce and custody. At no point did Mr. Friedenberg allege that Mrs. Friedenberg’s mental health made her an unfit parent. The court agreed with Mr. Friedenberg and compelled disclosure of Mrs. Friedenberg’s psychiatric records, stating it is “hard to imagine a scenario where the mental health records of a parent would not be relevant to issues around custody and the best interests of the children.” The judge reviewed Mrs. Friedenberg’s psychiatric records privately and released records deemed relevant to the custody proceedings. On appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court agreed with this approach, holding that a parent’s mental fitness is always an issue in child custody cases, even if not asserted by either party. The court further held that unnecessary disclosure of sensitive information was prevented by the judge’s private review of records before deciding which records to release to the opposing spouse.

Waiver of physician-patient privilege

Waiver of physician-patient privilege in custody and divorce proceedings varies by state (Table 3^3-6). The Friedenberg decision highlights the most restrictive approach, where the mere filing of a divorce and child custody request automatically waives privilege. Some states, such as Indiana,⁴ follow a similar scheme to Ohio. Other states are silent on this issue or explicitly prohibit a waiver of privilege, asserting that custody disputes alone do not trigger disclosure without additional justifications, such as aberrant parental behaviors or other historical information concerning for abuse, neglect, or lack of parental fitness, or if a parent places their mental health at issue.⁷

Continue to: Once privilege is waived...

Once privilege is waived, the next step is to determine who should examine psychiatric records, deem relevance, and disclose sensitive information to the court and the opposing party. A judge may make this determination, as in the Friedenberg case. Alternatively, an independent psychiatric examiner may be appointed by the court to examine one or both parties; to obtain collateral information, including psychiatric records; and to submit a report to the court with medicolegal opinions regarding parental fitness. For example, in Maryland,⁶ the mere filing of a custody suit does not waive privilege. If a parent’s mental health is questioned, the judge may order an independent psychiatric examination to determine the parent’s fitness, thus balancing the best interests of the child with the parent’s right to physician-patient privilege.

The problem with automatic waivers

The foundation of the physician-patient relationship is trust and confidentiality. While this holds true for every specialty, perhaps it is even more important in psychiatry, where our patients routinely disclose sensitive, personal information in hopes of healing. Patients may not be aware of exceptions to confidentiality, or only be aware of the most well-known exceptions, such as the clinician’s duty to report abuse, or to warn a third party about risk of harm by a patient. Furthermore, clinicians and patients alike may not be aware of less-common exceptions to privilege, such as those that may occur in custody proceedings. This is critically important in light of the high number of patients who are or may be seeking divorce and custody of their children.

As psychiatric clinicians, it is highly likely that we will see patients going through divorce and custody proceedings. In 2018, there were 2.24 marriages for every divorce,⁸ and in 2014, 27% of all American children were living with a custodial parent, with the other parent living elsewhere.⁹ Divorce can be a profoundly stressful time; thus, it would be expected that many individuals going through divorce would seek psychiatric treatment and support.

Our concern is that the Friedenberg approach, which results in automatic disclosure of sensitive mental health information when a party files for divorce and custody, could deter patients from seeking psychiatric treatment, especially those anticipating divorce. Importantly, because women are nearly twice as likely as men to experience depression and anxiety¹⁰ and are more likely to seek treatment, this approach could disproportionately impact them.¹¹ In general, an automatic waiver policy may create an additional obstacle for individuals who are already reticent to seek treatment.

How to handle these situations

As a psychiatrist, you should be familiar with your state’s laws regarding exceptions to patient-physician privilege, and should discuss exceptions at the outset of treatment. However, you will need to weigh the potential negative impacts of this information on the therapeutic relationship, including possible early termination. Furthermore, this information may impact a patient’s willingness to disclose all relevant information to mental health treatment if there is concern for later court disclosure. How should you balance these concerns? First, encourage patients to ask questions and raise concerns about confidentiality and privilege.¹² In addition, you may direct the patient to other resources, such as a family law attorney, if they have questions about how certain information may be used in a legal proceeding.

Continue to: Second, you should be...

Second, you should be transparent regarding documentation of psychiatric visits. While documentation must meet ethical, legal, and billing requirements, you should take care to include only relevant information needed to make a diagnosis and provide indicated treatment while maintaining a neutral tone and avoiding medical jargon.¹³ For instance, we frequently use the term “denied” in medical documentation, as in “Mr. X denied cough, sore throat, fever or chills.” However, in psychiatric notes, if a patient “denied alcohol use,” the colloquial interpretation of this word could imply a tone of distrust toward the patient. A more sensitive way to document this might be: “When screened, reported no alcohol use.” If a patient divulges information and then asks you to omit this from their chart, but you do not feel comfortable doing so, explain what and why you must include the information in the chart.¹⁴

Third, if you receive a subpoena or other document requesting privileged information, first contact the patient and inform them of the request, and then seek legal consultation through your employer or malpractice insurer.¹⁵ Not all subpoenas are valid and enforceable, so it is important for an attorney to examine the subpoena; in addition, the patient’s attorney may choose to challenge the subpoena and limit the disclosure of privileged information.

Finally, inform legislatures and courts about the potential harm of automatic waivers in custody proceedings. A judge’s examination of the psychiatric records, as in Friedenberg, is not an adequate safeguard. A judge is not a trained mental health professional and may deem “relevant” information to be nearly everything: a history of abuse, remote drug or alcohol use, disclosure of a past crime, or financial troubles. We advocate for courts to follow the Maryland model, where a spouse does not automatically waive privilege if filing for divorce or custody. If mental health becomes an issue in a case, then the court may seek an independent psychiatric examination. The independent examiner will have access to patient records but will be in a better position to determine which details are relevant in determining diagnosis and parental fitness, and to render an opinion to the court.

CASE CONTINUED

You inform Mrs. W about a possible exception to privilege in divorce and custody cases. She decides to first talk with a family law attorney before proceeding with treatment. You defer your diagnosis and wait to see if she wants to proceed with treatment. Unfortunately, she does not return to your office.

Bottom Line

Some states limit the confidentiality and privilege of parents who are in psychiatric treatment and also involved in divorce and child custody cases. Psychiatrists should be mindful of these exceptions, and discuss them with patients at the onset of treatment.

Related Resources

• Legal Information Institute. Child custody: an overview. www.law.cornell.edu/wex/child_custody
• Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, et al. Child custody in divorce. In: Melton GB, Petrila J, Poythress NG, et al. Psychological evaluations for the courts. Guilford Press; 2018:530-533.