User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
Returning to competition
As we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.
When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.
When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.
The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.
Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.
There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.
Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
As we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.
When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.
When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.
The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.
Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.
There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.
Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
As we continue to stumble around trying to find our way out of the COVID-19 pandemic, it has become clear that the journey has been a never-ending continuum of exercises in risk/benefit assessment. The population always has sorted itself into a bell-shaped curve from those who are risk averse to those who revel in risk taking. And, of course, with a paucity of facts on which we can base our assessment of risk, the discussion often shifts to our gut feelings about the benefits.
When faced with the question of when it is time for children to return to in-person schooling, there seems to be reasonably good agreement about the benefits of face-to-face learning. The level of risk is still to be determined.
When it comes to the issue of when to return to competitive school sports, the risks are equally indeterminate but there is less agreement on the benefits. This lack of uniformity reflects a long-standing dichotomy between those parents and students with a passion for competitive sports and those who see them as nonessential. This existential tug-of-war has gone on in almost every school system I am aware of when the school budget comes up for a vote.
The debate about a return to competitive sports on a collegiate and professional level unfortunately is colored by enormous revenues from media contracts, which means that high school and middle schools can’t look to what are essentially businesses for guidance. The delay created confusion, fluctuating angst and disappointment, but the end product made some sense. Volleyball (indoor) and football were indefinitely delayed. Heavy breathing between competitors separated by a couple of feet and protected only by a flimsy net or helmet cage seems like a risk not worth taking – at least until we have more information.
Other sports were allowed to start with restrictions based on existing social distancing mandates which include no locker rooms and no fans. Some rules such as no throw-ins for soccer didn’t make sense given what we are learning about the virus. But, for the most part, the compromises should result in a chance to reap the benefits of competition for the students whose families are willing to expose them to the yet to be fully determined risks.
There has been some grumbling from parents who see the no-fans mandate as a step too far. Until we know more about the risk of group gatherings outdoors, having no fans, including parents and grandparents, makes sense. In fact, to me it is a step long overdue and a rare sliver of silver lining to the pandemic. Competitive youth sports are for the kids. They are not meant to be entertainment events. Too often children are exposed to parental pressure (voiced and unvoiced) about their “performance” on the field. Neither my younger sister nor I can remember our parents going to any of my away football games in high school or any of my lacrosse games in college. I never felt the loss.
Will I miss watching my grandchildren compete? Of course I will miss it badly. However, giving kids some space to learn and enjoy the competition for itself in an atmosphere free of parental over-involvement will be a breath of fresh air. Something we need badly during this pandemic.
Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].
Alcohol problems linked to legal performance-enhancement products
Adolescent alcohol use among boys was prospectively associated with use of legal performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood, based on prospective cohort data from more than 12,000 individuals, wrote Kyle T. Ganson, PhD, MSW, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
In addition, legal use of performance-enhancing substances (PES) among young men was associated with increased risk of alcohol use problems.
Although previous studies have shown a range of adverse effects associated with the use of anabolic-androgenic steroid derivatives (defined as illegal PES), the possible adverse effects of legal PES (defined in this report as protein powders, creatine monohydrate, dehydroepiandrostenedione, and amino acids) have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 12,133 young adults aged 18-26 years who were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health from 1994 to 2008.
Overall, 16% of young men and 1% of young women reported using legal PES in the past year. Among men, legal PES use was prospectively associated with increased risk of a range of alcohol-related problem behaviors including binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35), injurious and risky behaviors (aOR, 1.78), legal problems (aOR, 1.52), reduced activities and socializing (aOR, 1.91), and problems with emotional or physical health (aOR, 1.44).
Legal PES use among young adult women was associated with an increased risk of emotional or physical health problems (aOR, 3.00).
Adolescent impact
Between adolescence and young adulthood (an average of 7 years’ follow-up), alcohol use was prospectively associated with legal PES use in young men (OR, 1.39), but neither cigarette smoking nor marijuana use in adolescence was associated with later use of legal PES. Among young women, no type of adolescent substance use was prospectively associated with later use of legal PES.
“To date, legal PES have not been largely considered as part of the spectrum of substances used among adolescents, have not been subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as other substances known to be linked to subsequent substance use and are freely available over the counter to adolescents,” Dr. Ganson and associates noted.
“Clearly, the robust reciprocal temporal relationship between substance use and legal PES suggests that each may serve as a gateway for the other,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to identify outcomes associated with variable PES components, incomplete data collection on several drinking-related risk behaviors, and inability to analyze prospective use of illegal or other substances associated with use of legal PES, the researchers wrote.
However, “these results provide further evidence in support of the gateway theory and prospective health risk behaviors associated with legal PES and substance use,” they wrote.
The data may inform policy on the additional regulation of legal PES use in minors. In the meantime, “it is important for medical providers and clinicians to assess problematic alcohol use and drinking-related risk behaviors among young adult men who have previously used legal PES,” Dr. Ganson and associates concluded.
Challenges to clinicians
An important point to recognize is that PES is a misleading term, Steven Cuff, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and Michele LaBotz, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most legal supplements marketed for athletic performance enhancement are ineffective at increasing muscle mass or athletic performance beyond what can be achieved through appropriate nutrition and training,” they emphasized. The current study findings suggest that “legal PES should be integrated into the gateway hypothesis regarding patterns and progression of substance use through adolescence and early adulthood,” and support discouragement of any PES use among adolescents and young adults.
Even legal PES can be dangerous because of the lack of oversight of dietary supplements by the Food and Drug Administration. “There is widespread evidence that many over-the-counter dietary supplements lack stated ingredients, contain unlabeled ingredients (including potential allergens), or are contaminated with impurities or illegal or dangerous substances, such as steroids and stimulants,” the editorialists emphasized.
In addition, the association found in the study between muscle dysphoria and both PES use and substance use disorders, notably alcohol-related morbidity, highlights the need for a proactive approach by pediatricians to minimize the risk, they noted.
“For pediatricians uncomfortable with initiating discussions on PES use with their patients, an American Academy of Pediatrics–supported role-play simulation is available,” they concluded.
The study is important because “PES use is ubiquitous among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. LaBotz said in an interview. “Although it is widely believed that PES use serves as a likely ‘gateway’ to use of anabolic steroids and other substances, this is one of the very few studies that explores this relationship. Their findings that alcohol use appears to correlate with subsequent use of PES, and that PES use appears to correlate with future alcohol-related issues, suggest that this is not a simple linear progression of problematic behavior.”
Dr. LaBotz added that she was not surprised by the study findings, and emphasized that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the association between PES and alcohol use. “PES screening should be incorporated into screening done for alcohol and other substance use. This appears to be particularly true for athletes and other subpopulations who are at higher risk for problematic alcohol use.”
She said much of PES use is driven by the desire by young men for a muscular appearance, but more research is needed on young women. “In the past, this was a goal primarily associated with males, but females have become increasingly interested in achieving muscularity as well, which suggests an increasing risk of PES use among females as compared to earlier reports. We need updated data on patterns, prevalence and consequences of PES use in females.”
In addition, “although preparticipation physical examination forms include screening questions for PES use among athletes, further information is needed on how to incorporate PES into substance use screening that is performed in a general pediatric population, such as including athletes and nonathletes,” Dr. LaBotz said.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and by grants to one of the coauthors from the Pediatric Scientist Development Program funded by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pediatric Society, as well as the American Heart Association Career Development Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cuff and Dr. LaBotz had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Ganson KT et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0409.
Adolescent alcohol use among boys was prospectively associated with use of legal performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood, based on prospective cohort data from more than 12,000 individuals, wrote Kyle T. Ganson, PhD, MSW, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
In addition, legal use of performance-enhancing substances (PES) among young men was associated with increased risk of alcohol use problems.
Although previous studies have shown a range of adverse effects associated with the use of anabolic-androgenic steroid derivatives (defined as illegal PES), the possible adverse effects of legal PES (defined in this report as protein powders, creatine monohydrate, dehydroepiandrostenedione, and amino acids) have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 12,133 young adults aged 18-26 years who were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health from 1994 to 2008.
Overall, 16% of young men and 1% of young women reported using legal PES in the past year. Among men, legal PES use was prospectively associated with increased risk of a range of alcohol-related problem behaviors including binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35), injurious and risky behaviors (aOR, 1.78), legal problems (aOR, 1.52), reduced activities and socializing (aOR, 1.91), and problems with emotional or physical health (aOR, 1.44).
Legal PES use among young adult women was associated with an increased risk of emotional or physical health problems (aOR, 3.00).
Adolescent impact
Between adolescence and young adulthood (an average of 7 years’ follow-up), alcohol use was prospectively associated with legal PES use in young men (OR, 1.39), but neither cigarette smoking nor marijuana use in adolescence was associated with later use of legal PES. Among young women, no type of adolescent substance use was prospectively associated with later use of legal PES.
“To date, legal PES have not been largely considered as part of the spectrum of substances used among adolescents, have not been subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as other substances known to be linked to subsequent substance use and are freely available over the counter to adolescents,” Dr. Ganson and associates noted.
“Clearly, the robust reciprocal temporal relationship between substance use and legal PES suggests that each may serve as a gateway for the other,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to identify outcomes associated with variable PES components, incomplete data collection on several drinking-related risk behaviors, and inability to analyze prospective use of illegal or other substances associated with use of legal PES, the researchers wrote.
However, “these results provide further evidence in support of the gateway theory and prospective health risk behaviors associated with legal PES and substance use,” they wrote.
The data may inform policy on the additional regulation of legal PES use in minors. In the meantime, “it is important for medical providers and clinicians to assess problematic alcohol use and drinking-related risk behaviors among young adult men who have previously used legal PES,” Dr. Ganson and associates concluded.
Challenges to clinicians
An important point to recognize is that PES is a misleading term, Steven Cuff, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and Michele LaBotz, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most legal supplements marketed for athletic performance enhancement are ineffective at increasing muscle mass or athletic performance beyond what can be achieved through appropriate nutrition and training,” they emphasized. The current study findings suggest that “legal PES should be integrated into the gateway hypothesis regarding patterns and progression of substance use through adolescence and early adulthood,” and support discouragement of any PES use among adolescents and young adults.
Even legal PES can be dangerous because of the lack of oversight of dietary supplements by the Food and Drug Administration. “There is widespread evidence that many over-the-counter dietary supplements lack stated ingredients, contain unlabeled ingredients (including potential allergens), or are contaminated with impurities or illegal or dangerous substances, such as steroids and stimulants,” the editorialists emphasized.
In addition, the association found in the study between muscle dysphoria and both PES use and substance use disorders, notably alcohol-related morbidity, highlights the need for a proactive approach by pediatricians to minimize the risk, they noted.
“For pediatricians uncomfortable with initiating discussions on PES use with their patients, an American Academy of Pediatrics–supported role-play simulation is available,” they concluded.
The study is important because “PES use is ubiquitous among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. LaBotz said in an interview. “Although it is widely believed that PES use serves as a likely ‘gateway’ to use of anabolic steroids and other substances, this is one of the very few studies that explores this relationship. Their findings that alcohol use appears to correlate with subsequent use of PES, and that PES use appears to correlate with future alcohol-related issues, suggest that this is not a simple linear progression of problematic behavior.”
Dr. LaBotz added that she was not surprised by the study findings, and emphasized that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the association between PES and alcohol use. “PES screening should be incorporated into screening done for alcohol and other substance use. This appears to be particularly true for athletes and other subpopulations who are at higher risk for problematic alcohol use.”
She said much of PES use is driven by the desire by young men for a muscular appearance, but more research is needed on young women. “In the past, this was a goal primarily associated with males, but females have become increasingly interested in achieving muscularity as well, which suggests an increasing risk of PES use among females as compared to earlier reports. We need updated data on patterns, prevalence and consequences of PES use in females.”
In addition, “although preparticipation physical examination forms include screening questions for PES use among athletes, further information is needed on how to incorporate PES into substance use screening that is performed in a general pediatric population, such as including athletes and nonathletes,” Dr. LaBotz said.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and by grants to one of the coauthors from the Pediatric Scientist Development Program funded by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pediatric Society, as well as the American Heart Association Career Development Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cuff and Dr. LaBotz had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Ganson KT et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0409.
Adolescent alcohol use among boys was prospectively associated with use of legal performance-enhancing substances in young adulthood, based on prospective cohort data from more than 12,000 individuals, wrote Kyle T. Ganson, PhD, MSW, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.
In addition, legal use of performance-enhancing substances (PES) among young men was associated with increased risk of alcohol use problems.
Although previous studies have shown a range of adverse effects associated with the use of anabolic-androgenic steroid derivatives (defined as illegal PES), the possible adverse effects of legal PES (defined in this report as protein powders, creatine monohydrate, dehydroepiandrostenedione, and amino acids) have not been well studied, the researchers wrote.
In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers reviewed data from 12,133 young adults aged 18-26 years who were part of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health from 1994 to 2008.
Overall, 16% of young men and 1% of young women reported using legal PES in the past year. Among men, legal PES use was prospectively associated with increased risk of a range of alcohol-related problem behaviors including binge drinking (adjusted odds ratio, 1.35), injurious and risky behaviors (aOR, 1.78), legal problems (aOR, 1.52), reduced activities and socializing (aOR, 1.91), and problems with emotional or physical health (aOR, 1.44).
Legal PES use among young adult women was associated with an increased risk of emotional or physical health problems (aOR, 3.00).
Adolescent impact
Between adolescence and young adulthood (an average of 7 years’ follow-up), alcohol use was prospectively associated with legal PES use in young men (OR, 1.39), but neither cigarette smoking nor marijuana use in adolescence was associated with later use of legal PES. Among young women, no type of adolescent substance use was prospectively associated with later use of legal PES.
“To date, legal PES have not been largely considered as part of the spectrum of substances used among adolescents, have not been subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as other substances known to be linked to subsequent substance use and are freely available over the counter to adolescents,” Dr. Ganson and associates noted.
“Clearly, the robust reciprocal temporal relationship between substance use and legal PES suggests that each may serve as a gateway for the other,” they wrote.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to identify outcomes associated with variable PES components, incomplete data collection on several drinking-related risk behaviors, and inability to analyze prospective use of illegal or other substances associated with use of legal PES, the researchers wrote.
However, “these results provide further evidence in support of the gateway theory and prospective health risk behaviors associated with legal PES and substance use,” they wrote.
The data may inform policy on the additional regulation of legal PES use in minors. In the meantime, “it is important for medical providers and clinicians to assess problematic alcohol use and drinking-related risk behaviors among young adult men who have previously used legal PES,” Dr. Ganson and associates concluded.
Challenges to clinicians
An important point to recognize is that PES is a misleading term, Steven Cuff, MD, of the Ohio State University, Columbus, and Michele LaBotz, MD, of Tufts University, Boston, wrote in an accompanying editorial. “Most legal supplements marketed for athletic performance enhancement are ineffective at increasing muscle mass or athletic performance beyond what can be achieved through appropriate nutrition and training,” they emphasized. The current study findings suggest that “legal PES should be integrated into the gateway hypothesis regarding patterns and progression of substance use through adolescence and early adulthood,” and support discouragement of any PES use among adolescents and young adults.
Even legal PES can be dangerous because of the lack of oversight of dietary supplements by the Food and Drug Administration. “There is widespread evidence that many over-the-counter dietary supplements lack stated ingredients, contain unlabeled ingredients (including potential allergens), or are contaminated with impurities or illegal or dangerous substances, such as steroids and stimulants,” the editorialists emphasized.
In addition, the association found in the study between muscle dysphoria and both PES use and substance use disorders, notably alcohol-related morbidity, highlights the need for a proactive approach by pediatricians to minimize the risk, they noted.
“For pediatricians uncomfortable with initiating discussions on PES use with their patients, an American Academy of Pediatrics–supported role-play simulation is available,” they concluded.
The study is important because “PES use is ubiquitous among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. LaBotz said in an interview. “Although it is widely believed that PES use serves as a likely ‘gateway’ to use of anabolic steroids and other substances, this is one of the very few studies that explores this relationship. Their findings that alcohol use appears to correlate with subsequent use of PES, and that PES use appears to correlate with future alcohol-related issues, suggest that this is not a simple linear progression of problematic behavior.”
Dr. LaBotz added that she was not surprised by the study findings, and emphasized that pediatric health care providers should be aware of the association between PES and alcohol use. “PES screening should be incorporated into screening done for alcohol and other substance use. This appears to be particularly true for athletes and other subpopulations who are at higher risk for problematic alcohol use.”
She said much of PES use is driven by the desire by young men for a muscular appearance, but more research is needed on young women. “In the past, this was a goal primarily associated with males, but females have become increasingly interested in achieving muscularity as well, which suggests an increasing risk of PES use among females as compared to earlier reports. We need updated data on patterns, prevalence and consequences of PES use in females.”
In addition, “although preparticipation physical examination forms include screening questions for PES use among athletes, further information is needed on how to incorporate PES into substance use screening that is performed in a general pediatric population, such as including athletes and nonathletes,” Dr. LaBotz said.
The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and by grants to one of the coauthors from the Pediatric Scientist Development Program funded by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pediatric Society, as well as the American Heart Association Career Development Award. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Cuff and Dr. LaBotz had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Ganson KT et al. Pediatrics. 2020 Sep. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-0409.
FROM PEDIATRICS
LSD microdosing to boost attention: Too soon to tell?
Microdosing with lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is associated with improved mood and increased attention, early research suggests. However, at least one expert believes it’s far too soon to tell and warns against endorsing patient microdosing.
In a dose-finding exploratory study, three low doses of LSD were compared with placebo in healthy volunteers who were all recreational drug users. Adjusted results showed that the highest dose boosted attention and mood, although participants were aware of psychedelic effects, prompting researchers to conclude the results demonstrated “selective, beneficial effects.”
“The majority of participants have improved attention,” study investigator Nadia Hutten, PhD, Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Maastricht University, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News.
“So we think that patients with attention deficits might have more beneficial effects,” she added, noting her team plans to study LSD microdosing in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The study was presented at the 33rd European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Growing interest
Over the past 10 years there has been growing interest in psychedelic microdosing, which is defined as a dose that aims to enhance mood and/or performance but does not affect perception.
However, there has been considerable debate over what constitutes a “microdose.” One tenth of a “full” psychedelic dose is typically suggested, but users report a much wider dose range in practice, suggesting potential “individual variation in response to low doses,” the researchers note.
In the current dose-finding study, the researchers explored whether the effects of LSD on cognition and subjective measures differed between individuals.
The study included 24 healthy recreational drug users and compared the acute effects of 5 mcg, 20 mcg, and 20 mcg LSD with placebo on a computer-based psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) that measured attention and on a Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST).
Participants also completed the 72-item Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire, a visual analog scale (VAS) on mood, and the 94-item 5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Rating scales (5D-ASC).
Unadjusted results showed that the 20-mcg LSD dose significantly reduced correct substitutions on the DSST vs placebo (P < .05), but had no effect on attentional lapses on the PCT or on positive mood on the POMS.
Correcting the DSST score for the number of total responses revealed no dose effect of LSD. This suggested that participants were no less accurate when under the influence of LSD, even though they encoded fewer digits, the researchers note.
Participants also reported that both the 10-mcg and 20-mcg dose of LSD increased subjective experiences on the VAS and alternated states of consciousness on the 5D-ASC compared with placebo.
After stratifying the results by dose and participant, the effect of LSD differed between individuals. For example, both the 5-mcg and 20-mcg doses were associated with improvement in attention on the PVT (P < .05), but not the 10-mcg dose.
These results also indicated that the 20-mcg dose was associated with a significant increase in the correct number of substitutions on the DSST and with a significant increase in positive mood on the POMS (P < .05 for both outcomes).
The findings suggest that future studies in patient populations with impaired attention are needed, “including biological parameters involved in LSD receptor-binding and metabolism, in order to understand the inter-individual variation in response to LSD,” the investigators note.
In an educational session at the meeting, the study’s lead researcher, Kim Kuypers, PhD, associate professor at Maastricht University, said research shows individuals are already self-medicating with psychedelic microdosing to treat a wide range of mental health problems, and rated it as significantly more effective than conventional therapy at alleviating symptoms and improving quality of life.
Nevertheless, Kuypers noted there have been fewer than 20 published placebo-controlled studies examining psychedelic microdosing in humans – and much of the current evidence is anecdotal.
However, there is some clinical research suggesting that low-dose LSD is associated with improved mood and cognitive performance and that it also has an effect on resting-state amygdala functional connectivity and acutely increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor plasma levels.
Furthermore, said Kuypers, the evidence in healthy volunteers thus far suggests microdosing is “safe.”
Jumping ahead of the science?
Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York City, said he “gives the investigators credit for doing such a study” but does not believe anything can be gleaned from the findings.
He said he is also concerned that the resurgence of psychedelic research is not congruent with “the methodologic rigor and scientific thinking that accompanies treatment development in other disease areas.”
Lieberman, who is also psychiatrist-in-chief at the NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital Columbia Medical Center and was not involved with the study, added that some of the research is also being conducted in individuals who are “true believers and not sufficiently dispassionate and objective.”
“ But because these are such notorious and interesting compounds, they have attracted a lot of peripheral interest to promote and to disseminate; and the risk is that it will be done in the wrong way and there may be consequences,” he said.
Moreover, Lieberman noted that the psychedelic drugs may be used in practice ahead of strong evidence of safety and efficacy. As an example, he pointed to ketamine, a drug that was identified as a treatment for people with depression who had not responded to standard treatments, he noted.
“But before you knew it, there were clinics being opened up all over the place by anesthesiologists or other people that were trying to make a quick buck,” he said.
“That was alarming because they were stretching the criteria for whom the treatment was appropriate; there were no protocols for dosing, for frequency of administration, and there was inadequate psychiatric follow-up,” Lieberman added.
Preliminary but promising
He agreed with Kuypers that cases of microdosing with psychedelics are largely anecdotal.
“So in that context, when these investigators tried to put it to a test, which is commendable, the results in no way tell you whether it’s good, bad, or indifferent,” Lieberman said. In fact, the results are “disappointing in terms of suggesting any beneficial effect.”
Lieberman said more and larger studies are needed in order to determine whether LSD microdosing is beneficial.
In response to Lieberman’s comments, Kuypers told Medscape Medical News that the investigators tried to base their placebo-controlled research on previous anecdotal research.
She emphasized that the “whole field is still in its infancy,” including research on the use of “full” doses of psychedelics.
“I sometimes think that the message is too positive. We should never forget to communicate that not a lot of research has been done.” In addition, she agreed that researchers should “keep a balanced message.”
“All the data to date is preliminary, in my view, but promising,” she stressed, “and the evidence is growing.”
The study received financial support from the Beckley Foundation. The study authors and Lieberman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Microdosing with lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is associated with improved mood and increased attention, early research suggests. However, at least one expert believes it’s far too soon to tell and warns against endorsing patient microdosing.
In a dose-finding exploratory study, three low doses of LSD were compared with placebo in healthy volunteers who were all recreational drug users. Adjusted results showed that the highest dose boosted attention and mood, although participants were aware of psychedelic effects, prompting researchers to conclude the results demonstrated “selective, beneficial effects.”
“The majority of participants have improved attention,” study investigator Nadia Hutten, PhD, Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Maastricht University, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News.
“So we think that patients with attention deficits might have more beneficial effects,” she added, noting her team plans to study LSD microdosing in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The study was presented at the 33rd European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Growing interest
Over the past 10 years there has been growing interest in psychedelic microdosing, which is defined as a dose that aims to enhance mood and/or performance but does not affect perception.
However, there has been considerable debate over what constitutes a “microdose.” One tenth of a “full” psychedelic dose is typically suggested, but users report a much wider dose range in practice, suggesting potential “individual variation in response to low doses,” the researchers note.
In the current dose-finding study, the researchers explored whether the effects of LSD on cognition and subjective measures differed between individuals.
The study included 24 healthy recreational drug users and compared the acute effects of 5 mcg, 20 mcg, and 20 mcg LSD with placebo on a computer-based psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) that measured attention and on a Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST).
Participants also completed the 72-item Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire, a visual analog scale (VAS) on mood, and the 94-item 5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Rating scales (5D-ASC).
Unadjusted results showed that the 20-mcg LSD dose significantly reduced correct substitutions on the DSST vs placebo (P < .05), but had no effect on attentional lapses on the PCT or on positive mood on the POMS.
Correcting the DSST score for the number of total responses revealed no dose effect of LSD. This suggested that participants were no less accurate when under the influence of LSD, even though they encoded fewer digits, the researchers note.
Participants also reported that both the 10-mcg and 20-mcg dose of LSD increased subjective experiences on the VAS and alternated states of consciousness on the 5D-ASC compared with placebo.
After stratifying the results by dose and participant, the effect of LSD differed between individuals. For example, both the 5-mcg and 20-mcg doses were associated with improvement in attention on the PVT (P < .05), but not the 10-mcg dose.
These results also indicated that the 20-mcg dose was associated with a significant increase in the correct number of substitutions on the DSST and with a significant increase in positive mood on the POMS (P < .05 for both outcomes).
The findings suggest that future studies in patient populations with impaired attention are needed, “including biological parameters involved in LSD receptor-binding and metabolism, in order to understand the inter-individual variation in response to LSD,” the investigators note.
In an educational session at the meeting, the study’s lead researcher, Kim Kuypers, PhD, associate professor at Maastricht University, said research shows individuals are already self-medicating with psychedelic microdosing to treat a wide range of mental health problems, and rated it as significantly more effective than conventional therapy at alleviating symptoms and improving quality of life.
Nevertheless, Kuypers noted there have been fewer than 20 published placebo-controlled studies examining psychedelic microdosing in humans – and much of the current evidence is anecdotal.
However, there is some clinical research suggesting that low-dose LSD is associated with improved mood and cognitive performance and that it also has an effect on resting-state amygdala functional connectivity and acutely increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor plasma levels.
Furthermore, said Kuypers, the evidence in healthy volunteers thus far suggests microdosing is “safe.”
Jumping ahead of the science?
Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York City, said he “gives the investigators credit for doing such a study” but does not believe anything can be gleaned from the findings.
He said he is also concerned that the resurgence of psychedelic research is not congruent with “the methodologic rigor and scientific thinking that accompanies treatment development in other disease areas.”
Lieberman, who is also psychiatrist-in-chief at the NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital Columbia Medical Center and was not involved with the study, added that some of the research is also being conducted in individuals who are “true believers and not sufficiently dispassionate and objective.”
“ But because these are such notorious and interesting compounds, they have attracted a lot of peripheral interest to promote and to disseminate; and the risk is that it will be done in the wrong way and there may be consequences,” he said.
Moreover, Lieberman noted that the psychedelic drugs may be used in practice ahead of strong evidence of safety and efficacy. As an example, he pointed to ketamine, a drug that was identified as a treatment for people with depression who had not responded to standard treatments, he noted.
“But before you knew it, there were clinics being opened up all over the place by anesthesiologists or other people that were trying to make a quick buck,” he said.
“That was alarming because they were stretching the criteria for whom the treatment was appropriate; there were no protocols for dosing, for frequency of administration, and there was inadequate psychiatric follow-up,” Lieberman added.
Preliminary but promising
He agreed with Kuypers that cases of microdosing with psychedelics are largely anecdotal.
“So in that context, when these investigators tried to put it to a test, which is commendable, the results in no way tell you whether it’s good, bad, or indifferent,” Lieberman said. In fact, the results are “disappointing in terms of suggesting any beneficial effect.”
Lieberman said more and larger studies are needed in order to determine whether LSD microdosing is beneficial.
In response to Lieberman’s comments, Kuypers told Medscape Medical News that the investigators tried to base their placebo-controlled research on previous anecdotal research.
She emphasized that the “whole field is still in its infancy,” including research on the use of “full” doses of psychedelics.
“I sometimes think that the message is too positive. We should never forget to communicate that not a lot of research has been done.” In addition, she agreed that researchers should “keep a balanced message.”
“All the data to date is preliminary, in my view, but promising,” she stressed, “and the evidence is growing.”
The study received financial support from the Beckley Foundation. The study authors and Lieberman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Microdosing with lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) is associated with improved mood and increased attention, early research suggests. However, at least one expert believes it’s far too soon to tell and warns against endorsing patient microdosing.
In a dose-finding exploratory study, three low doses of LSD were compared with placebo in healthy volunteers who were all recreational drug users. Adjusted results showed that the highest dose boosted attention and mood, although participants were aware of psychedelic effects, prompting researchers to conclude the results demonstrated “selective, beneficial effects.”
“The majority of participants have improved attention,” study investigator Nadia Hutten, PhD, Department of Neuropsychology and Psychopharmacology, Maastricht University, the Netherlands, told Medscape Medical News.
“So we think that patients with attention deficits might have more beneficial effects,” she added, noting her team plans to study LSD microdosing in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
The study was presented at the 33rd European College of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP) Congress, which was held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Growing interest
Over the past 10 years there has been growing interest in psychedelic microdosing, which is defined as a dose that aims to enhance mood and/or performance but does not affect perception.
However, there has been considerable debate over what constitutes a “microdose.” One tenth of a “full” psychedelic dose is typically suggested, but users report a much wider dose range in practice, suggesting potential “individual variation in response to low doses,” the researchers note.
In the current dose-finding study, the researchers explored whether the effects of LSD on cognition and subjective measures differed between individuals.
The study included 24 healthy recreational drug users and compared the acute effects of 5 mcg, 20 mcg, and 20 mcg LSD with placebo on a computer-based psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) that measured attention and on a Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST).
Participants also completed the 72-item Profile of Mood States (POMS) questionnaire, a visual analog scale (VAS) on mood, and the 94-item 5-Dimensional Altered States of Consciousness Rating scales (5D-ASC).
Unadjusted results showed that the 20-mcg LSD dose significantly reduced correct substitutions on the DSST vs placebo (P < .05), but had no effect on attentional lapses on the PCT or on positive mood on the POMS.
Correcting the DSST score for the number of total responses revealed no dose effect of LSD. This suggested that participants were no less accurate when under the influence of LSD, even though they encoded fewer digits, the researchers note.
Participants also reported that both the 10-mcg and 20-mcg dose of LSD increased subjective experiences on the VAS and alternated states of consciousness on the 5D-ASC compared with placebo.
After stratifying the results by dose and participant, the effect of LSD differed between individuals. For example, both the 5-mcg and 20-mcg doses were associated with improvement in attention on the PVT (P < .05), but not the 10-mcg dose.
These results also indicated that the 20-mcg dose was associated with a significant increase in the correct number of substitutions on the DSST and with a significant increase in positive mood on the POMS (P < .05 for both outcomes).
The findings suggest that future studies in patient populations with impaired attention are needed, “including biological parameters involved in LSD receptor-binding and metabolism, in order to understand the inter-individual variation in response to LSD,” the investigators note.
In an educational session at the meeting, the study’s lead researcher, Kim Kuypers, PhD, associate professor at Maastricht University, said research shows individuals are already self-medicating with psychedelic microdosing to treat a wide range of mental health problems, and rated it as significantly more effective than conventional therapy at alleviating symptoms and improving quality of life.
Nevertheless, Kuypers noted there have been fewer than 20 published placebo-controlled studies examining psychedelic microdosing in humans – and much of the current evidence is anecdotal.
However, there is some clinical research suggesting that low-dose LSD is associated with improved mood and cognitive performance and that it also has an effect on resting-state amygdala functional connectivity and acutely increases brain-derived neurotrophic factor plasma levels.
Furthermore, said Kuypers, the evidence in healthy volunteers thus far suggests microdosing is “safe.”
Jumping ahead of the science?
Commenting on the study for Medscape Medical News, Jeffrey A. Lieberman, MD, professor and chair of psychiatry at Columbia University, New York City, said he “gives the investigators credit for doing such a study” but does not believe anything can be gleaned from the findings.
He said he is also concerned that the resurgence of psychedelic research is not congruent with “the methodologic rigor and scientific thinking that accompanies treatment development in other disease areas.”
Lieberman, who is also psychiatrist-in-chief at the NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital Columbia Medical Center and was not involved with the study, added that some of the research is also being conducted in individuals who are “true believers and not sufficiently dispassionate and objective.”
“ But because these are such notorious and interesting compounds, they have attracted a lot of peripheral interest to promote and to disseminate; and the risk is that it will be done in the wrong way and there may be consequences,” he said.
Moreover, Lieberman noted that the psychedelic drugs may be used in practice ahead of strong evidence of safety and efficacy. As an example, he pointed to ketamine, a drug that was identified as a treatment for people with depression who had not responded to standard treatments, he noted.
“But before you knew it, there were clinics being opened up all over the place by anesthesiologists or other people that were trying to make a quick buck,” he said.
“That was alarming because they were stretching the criteria for whom the treatment was appropriate; there were no protocols for dosing, for frequency of administration, and there was inadequate psychiatric follow-up,” Lieberman added.
Preliminary but promising
He agreed with Kuypers that cases of microdosing with psychedelics are largely anecdotal.
“So in that context, when these investigators tried to put it to a test, which is commendable, the results in no way tell you whether it’s good, bad, or indifferent,” Lieberman said. In fact, the results are “disappointing in terms of suggesting any beneficial effect.”
Lieberman said more and larger studies are needed in order to determine whether LSD microdosing is beneficial.
In response to Lieberman’s comments, Kuypers told Medscape Medical News that the investigators tried to base their placebo-controlled research on previous anecdotal research.
She emphasized that the “whole field is still in its infancy,” including research on the use of “full” doses of psychedelics.
“I sometimes think that the message is too positive. We should never forget to communicate that not a lot of research has been done.” In addition, she agreed that researchers should “keep a balanced message.”
“All the data to date is preliminary, in my view, but promising,” she stressed, “and the evidence is growing.”
The study received financial support from the Beckley Foundation. The study authors and Lieberman have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy ‘somewhat understandable,’ expert says
“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”
Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.
And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.
“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
Addressing hesitancy in clinics
In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.
With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.
But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.
“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.
“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”
Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.
But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.
“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.
Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.
“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
Transparency will be paramount
While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.
“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.
Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.
“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.
“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.
“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”
Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”
Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.
And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.
“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
Addressing hesitancy in clinics
In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.
With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.
But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.
“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.
“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”
Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.
But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.
“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.
Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.
“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
Transparency will be paramount
While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.
“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.
Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.
“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.
“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.
“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”
Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
“I worry that vaccines are going to be sold like magic powder that we sprinkle across the land and make the virus go away,” Paul Offit, MD, said at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference. “That’s not true.”
Dr. Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center and an attending physician in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.
“I think we can get a vaccine that’s 75%-80% effective at preventing mild to moderate disease, but that means one of every four people can still get moderate to severe disease,” Dr. Offit continued.
And that’s if there is high uptake of the vaccine, which may not be the case. Recent polls have suggested there is considerable concern about the pending vaccines.
“It’s somewhat understandable,” Dr. Offitt acknowledged, especially given the “frightening” language used to describe vaccine development. Terms such as “warp speed” may suggest that haste might trump safety considerations. Before COVID-19, the fastest vaccine ever developed was for mumps, he said, with the virus isolated in 1963 and a commercial product available in 1967.
Addressing hesitancy in clinics
In a wide-ranging livestream plenary presentation, Dr. Offit, coinventor of a rotavirus vaccine, shed light on SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development and his impressions of vaccine hesitancy among patients and families. He also offered advice for how to reassure those skeptical of the safety and efficacy of any SARS-COV-2 vaccine, given the accelerated development process.
With more than 180 different vaccines in various stages of investigation, Dr. Offit called the effort to develop COVID-19 vaccines “unprecedented.” Part of that is a result of governments relieving pharmaceutical companies of much of the typical financial risk – which often climbs to hundreds of millions of dollars – by underwriting the costs of vaccine development to battle the pandemic-inducing virus, he said.
But this very swiftness is also stoking antivaccine sentiment. Dr. Offit, part of vaccine advisory groups for the National Institutes of Health and U.S. Food and Drug Administration, cited recent research reporting nearly half of American adults definitely or probably would not get a COVID-19 vaccine if it were available today.
“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said.
“The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”
Numerous strategies are being used in COVID-19 vaccine development, he noted, including messenger RNA, DNA, viral vectors, purified protein, and whole killed virus. Dr. Offit believes any candidates approved for distribution will likely be in the range of 75% effective at preventing mild to moderate symptoms.
But clinicians should be ready to face immediate questions of safety. “Even if this vaccination is given to 20,000 [trial participants] safely, that’s not 20 million,” Dr. Offit said. “Anyone could reasonably ask questions about if it causes rare, serious side effects.
“The good news is, there are systems in place,” such as adverse event reporting systems, to identify rare events, even those that occur in one in a million vaccine recipients. Reminding patients of that continued surveillance can be reassuring.
Another reassuring point is that COVID-19 vaccine trial participants have included people from many diverse populations, he said. But children, notably absent so far, should be added to trials immediately, Dr. Offit contends.
“This is going to be important when you consider strategies to get children universally back into school,” he said, which is a “critical issue” from both learning and wellness standpoints. “It breaks my heart that we’ve been unable to do this when other countries have.”
Transparency will be paramount
While presenting data transparently to patients is key in helping them accept COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Offit said, he also believes “telling stories” can be just as effective, if not more so. When the varicella vaccine was approved in 1995, he said, the “uptake the first few years was pretty miserable” until public service messaging emphasized that some children die from chickenpox.
“Fear works,” he said. “You always worry about pushback of something being oversold, but hopefully we’re scared enough about this virus” to convince people that vaccination is wise. “I do think personal stories carry weight on both sides,” Dr. Offit said.
Mark Sawyer, MD, of University of California San Diego School of Medicine and Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, California, said Offit’s presentation offered important takeaways for clinicians about how to broach the topic of COVID-19 vaccination with patients and families.
“We need to communicate clearly and transparently to patients about what we do and don’t know” about the vaccines, Dr. Sawyer said in an interview. “We will know if they have common side effects, but we will not know about very rare side effects until we have used the vaccines for a while.
“We will know how well the vaccine works over the short-term, but we won’t know over the long term,” added Dr. Sawyer, a member of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.
“We can reassure the community that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are being evaluated in trials in the same way and with the same thoroughness as other vaccines have been,” he said. “That should give people confidence that shortcuts are not being taken with regard to safety and effectiveness evaluations.”
Dr. Offit and Dr. Sawyer have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
COVID-19 and the superspreaders: Teens
Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.
I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.
Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.
Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Reference
COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.
Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.
I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.
Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.
Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Reference
COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.
Although cases of COVID-19 in children is reported to be low, we are seeing a surge in Wisconsin with a 27.6% positivity rate reported on Sept. 27. Numerous other states across the country are reporting similar jumps of 10% or more.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services as of Sept. 20, 2020, there were 10,644 cumulative cases in persons aged less than 18 years. This rise in cases is consistent with a return to school and sports. This cumulative case load amounts to 836.7/100, 000 cases. This population may not experience the level of illness seen in the older populations with hospitalization rates of only 3% under the age of 9 years and 13% of those age 10- 19-years, yet exposing older family and members of the community is driving the death rates. The combined influenza and COVID-19 season may greatly impact hospitalization rates of young and old. Additionally, we may see a surge in pediatric cancer rates and autoimmune diseases secondary to these trends.
I believe the overall number of adolescents with COVID-19 is underreported. Teens admit to a lack of understanding of symptoms. Many do not realize they have COVID-19 until someone points out the symptoms they describe such as a loss of taste or smell are COVID-19 symptoms. Others report they do not report symptoms to prevent quarantine. Additionally, others endorse ridicule from peers if they have tested positive and contract tracing identifies others potentially exposed and forced to sit out of sports because of quarantine. They have been bullied into amnesia when contract tracers call to prevent identifying others at school or in the community. All these behaviors proliferate the spread of disease within the community and will continue to drive both exposures and death rates.
Teens in high schools require increased education of the symptoms of COVID-19, promotion of the flu vaccine, and knowledge of the impact they can have on preventing the spread of viruses.
Ms. Thew is the medical director of the department of adolescent medicine at Children’s Wisconsin in Milwaukee. She is a member of the Pediatric News editorial advisory board. She said she had no relevant financial disclosures. Email her at [email protected].
Reference
COVID-19: Wisconsin Cases, Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Accessed 2020 Sep 27.
Pediatric fractures shift during pandemic
Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.
The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.
“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.
“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”
Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.
Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.
Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.
“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”
As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).
In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.
“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
Velcro splints more common
A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).
“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.
“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.
“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.
Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.
“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.
“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”
Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.
Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.
The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.
“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.
“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”
Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.
Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.
Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.
“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”
As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).
In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.
“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
Velcro splints more common
A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).
“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.
“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.
“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.
Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.
“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.
“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”
Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.
Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Pediatric fractures dropped by 2.5-fold during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, but more breaks happened at home and on bicycles, and younger kids were more affected, new research indicates.
The study of 1,745 patients also found that those with distal radius torus fractures were more likely to receive a Velcro splint during the pandemic. Experts said this key trend points toward widespread shifts to streamline treatment, which should persist after the pandemic.
“We expected to see a drop in fracture volume, but what was a bit unexpected was the proportional rise in at-home injuries, which we weren’t immediately aware of,” said senior author Apurva Shah, MD, MBA, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.
“As time went on, it became more apparent that trampoline and bicycle injuries were on the rise, but at the beginning of the pandemic, we didn’t intuitively expect that,” he added.
“Whenever there’s a major shift in how the world is working, we want to understand how that impacts child safety,” Dr. Shah said in an interview. “The message to get out to parents is that it’s obviously difficult to supervise kids while working from home” during the pandemic “and that supervision obviously is not always working as well as intended.”
Joshua T. Bram, a medical student, presented the study at the virtual American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) 2020 National Conference.
Dr. Bram, Dr. Shah, and colleagues compared patients with acute fractures who presented at CHOP between March and April 2020 with those who presented during the same months in 2018 and 2019.
Overall, the number of patients with pediatric fractures who presented to CHOP fell to an average of just under 10 per day, compared with more than 22 per day in prior years (P < .001). In addition, the age of the patients fell from an average of 9.4 years to 7.5 years (P < .001), with fewer adolescents affected in 2020.
“I think when you cancel a 14-year-old’s baseball season” because of the pandemic, “unfortunately, that lost outdoor time might be substituted with time on a screen,” he explained. “But canceling a 6-year-old’s soccer season might mean substituting that with more time outside on bikes or on a trampoline.”
As noted, because of the pandemic, a higher proportion of pediatric fractures occurred at home (57.8% vs. 32.5%; P < .001) or on bicycles (18.3% vs. 8.2%; P < .001), but there were fewer organized sports–related (7.2% vs. 26.0%; P < .001) or playground-related injuries (5.2% vs. 9.0%; P < .001).
In the study period this year, the researchers saw no increase in the amount of time between injury and presentation. However, data suggest that, in more recent months, “kids are presenting with fractures late, with sometimes great consequences,” Dr. Shah said.
“What has changed is that a lot of adults have lost their jobs, and as a consequence, a lot of children have lost their access to private insurance,” he said. “But fracture is really a major injury, and this is a reminder for pediatricians and primary care physicians to recognize that families are going through these changes and that delays in care can really be detrimental to children.”
Velcro splints more common
A potential upside to shifts seen during the pandemic, Dr. Shah said, is the finding that distal radius torus fractures were more likely to be treated with a Velcro splint than in previous years (44.2% vs. 25.9%; P = .010).
“This is hitting on something important – that sometimes it’s crisis that forces us as physicians to evolve,” he said. “This is something I think is here to stay.
“Although research had already been there suggesting a close equivalent between splints and casting, culturally, a lot of surgeons hadn’t made that shift when historically the gold standard had been casting,” Dr. Shah added. “But with the pandemic, the shift to minimize contact with the health care system to keep families safe in their COVID bubble helped [usage of] splints take off.
“I suspect – and we’ll only know when we’re on the other side of this – when physicians see good results in splints in their own patients, they’re going to adopt those strategies more permanently,” he said.
Benjamin Shore, MD, MPH, of Boston Children’s Hospital, agreed with Dr. Shah’s prediction that fracture care will be more streamlined after the pandemic. Dr. Shore, who wasn’t involved in the study, said not only are more orthopedic providers treating patients with Velcro splints and bivalve casts, but they are also monitoring patients via telehealth.
“All of these are great examples of innovation, and one of the unique parts of the pandemic is it created a lot of rapid change across healthcare because it caused us to scrutinize the ways we practice and make a change,” Dr. Shore said in an interview.
“It wasn’t a very fancy study, but it’s very important in terms of demonstrating a change in practice,” Dr. Shore said. “The research here basically validated what many of us are seeing and hopefully will help us in future pandemics – which hopefully won’t happen – to tell families what to be proactive about.”
Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore agreed that, because fewer fractures are occurring in kids during the pandemic, there is an opportunity to redeploy orthopedic providers to other clinical areas on the basis of volume and need.
Dr. Shah and Dr. Shore have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Teen affective disorders raise risk for midlife acute MI
in a Swedish national registry study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The association was mediated in part by poor stress resilience and lack of physical fitness among these teenagers with an affective disorder, reported Cecilia Bergh, PhD, of Obrero (Sweden) University.
Her study was made possible by Sweden’s comprehensive national health care registries coupled with the Nordic nation’s compulsory conscription for military service. The mandatory conscription evaluation during the study years included a semistructured interview with a psychologist to assess stress resilience through questions about coping with everyday life, a medical history and physical examination, and a cardiovascular fitness test using a bicycle ergometer.
The study included 238,013 males born in 1952-1956. They were aged 18-19 years when they underwent their conscription examination, at which time 34,503 of them either received or already had a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. During follow-up from 1987 to 2010, a first acute MI occurred in 5,891 of the men. The risk was increased 51% among those with an earlier teen diagnosis of depression or anxiety.
In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for levels of adolescent cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, body mass index, and systemic inflammation, as well as additional potential confounders, such as cognitive function, parental socioeconomic index, and a summary disease score, the midlife MI risk associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was attenuated, but still significant, with a 24% increase. Upon further statistical adjustment incorporating adolescent stress resilience and cardiovascular fitness, the increased risk of acute MI in midlife associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was further attenuated yet remained significant, at 18%.
Dr. Bergh shared her thoughts on preventing this increased risk of acute MI at a relatively young age: “Effective prevention might focus on behavior, lifestyle, and psychosocial stress in early life. If a healthy lifestyle is encouraged as early as possible in childhood and adolescence, it is more likely to persist into adulthood and to improve longterm health. So look for signs of stress, depression, or anxiety that is beyond normal teenager behavior and a persistent problem. Teenagers with poor well-being could benefit from additional support to encourage exercise and also to develop strategies to deal with stress.”
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Bergh C et al. ESC 2020, Abstract 90524.
in a Swedish national registry study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The association was mediated in part by poor stress resilience and lack of physical fitness among these teenagers with an affective disorder, reported Cecilia Bergh, PhD, of Obrero (Sweden) University.
Her study was made possible by Sweden’s comprehensive national health care registries coupled with the Nordic nation’s compulsory conscription for military service. The mandatory conscription evaluation during the study years included a semistructured interview with a psychologist to assess stress resilience through questions about coping with everyday life, a medical history and physical examination, and a cardiovascular fitness test using a bicycle ergometer.
The study included 238,013 males born in 1952-1956. They were aged 18-19 years when they underwent their conscription examination, at which time 34,503 of them either received or already had a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. During follow-up from 1987 to 2010, a first acute MI occurred in 5,891 of the men. The risk was increased 51% among those with an earlier teen diagnosis of depression or anxiety.
In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for levels of adolescent cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, body mass index, and systemic inflammation, as well as additional potential confounders, such as cognitive function, parental socioeconomic index, and a summary disease score, the midlife MI risk associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was attenuated, but still significant, with a 24% increase. Upon further statistical adjustment incorporating adolescent stress resilience and cardiovascular fitness, the increased risk of acute MI in midlife associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was further attenuated yet remained significant, at 18%.
Dr. Bergh shared her thoughts on preventing this increased risk of acute MI at a relatively young age: “Effective prevention might focus on behavior, lifestyle, and psychosocial stress in early life. If a healthy lifestyle is encouraged as early as possible in childhood and adolescence, it is more likely to persist into adulthood and to improve longterm health. So look for signs of stress, depression, or anxiety that is beyond normal teenager behavior and a persistent problem. Teenagers with poor well-being could benefit from additional support to encourage exercise and also to develop strategies to deal with stress.”
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Bergh C et al. ESC 2020, Abstract 90524.
in a Swedish national registry study presented at the virtual annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.
The association was mediated in part by poor stress resilience and lack of physical fitness among these teenagers with an affective disorder, reported Cecilia Bergh, PhD, of Obrero (Sweden) University.
Her study was made possible by Sweden’s comprehensive national health care registries coupled with the Nordic nation’s compulsory conscription for military service. The mandatory conscription evaluation during the study years included a semistructured interview with a psychologist to assess stress resilience through questions about coping with everyday life, a medical history and physical examination, and a cardiovascular fitness test using a bicycle ergometer.
The study included 238,013 males born in 1952-1956. They were aged 18-19 years when they underwent their conscription examination, at which time 34,503 of them either received or already had a diagnosis of depression or anxiety. During follow-up from 1987 to 2010, a first acute MI occurred in 5,891 of the men. The risk was increased 51% among those with an earlier teen diagnosis of depression or anxiety.
In a Cox regression analysis adjusted for levels of adolescent cardiovascular risk factors, including blood pressure, body mass index, and systemic inflammation, as well as additional potential confounders, such as cognitive function, parental socioeconomic index, and a summary disease score, the midlife MI risk associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was attenuated, but still significant, with a 24% increase. Upon further statistical adjustment incorporating adolescent stress resilience and cardiovascular fitness, the increased risk of acute MI in midlife associated with adolescent depression or anxiety was further attenuated yet remained significant, at 18%.
Dr. Bergh shared her thoughts on preventing this increased risk of acute MI at a relatively young age: “Effective prevention might focus on behavior, lifestyle, and psychosocial stress in early life. If a healthy lifestyle is encouraged as early as possible in childhood and adolescence, it is more likely to persist into adulthood and to improve longterm health. So look for signs of stress, depression, or anxiety that is beyond normal teenager behavior and a persistent problem. Teenagers with poor well-being could benefit from additional support to encourage exercise and also to develop strategies to deal with stress.”
She reported having no financial conflicts regarding her study, conducted free of commercial support.
SOURCE: Bergh C et al. ESC 2020, Abstract 90524.
FROM ESC CONGRESS 2020
CMS gives hospitals 14 weeks to start daily COVID, flu reports
The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.
Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.
Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.
The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.
The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.
The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.
Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.
“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.
Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.
The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.
Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.
Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”
The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.
CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.
Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.
Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.
Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.
The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.
The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.
The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.
Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.
“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.
Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.
The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.
Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.
Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”
The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.
CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.
Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The federal government is giving hospitals 14 weeks to comply with daily reporting requirements for COVID-19.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will send letters on October 7 to all 6,200 hospitals that receive reimbursement from the two federal health programs informing them of how well they are doing now, said CMS Administrator Seema Verma on a press call.
Verma would not give an estimate on how many hospitals are currently not compliant. But Deborah Birx, MD, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said on the call that 86% of hospitals are currently reporting daily.
Federal officials on the call also announced that hospitals would have the option to begin reporting certain data on influenza starting October 19, but that it would become mandatory a few weeks later.
The reporting is important “to really ensure that we’re triangulating all data to understand where this epidemic is, how it’s moving through different populations, and ensuring that we’re meeting the needs of specific hospitals and communities,” Birx said.
The federal government began a new hospital reporting system in April but did not require hospitals to participate until it quietly issued guidance in mid-July informing facilities that they should no longer report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The move perplexed many public health experts and epidemiologists, who expressed concern that asking hospitals to use a new data system during a pandemic could result in delays and lost information. The new HHS data collection site, HHS Protect, is being managed by a private contractor, not the CDC, which also raised alarms.
The final CMS rule issued in August went into effect immediately, without any chance for comment or revision. CMS said at the time that the pandemic was reason enough to skip over the normal bureaucratic process.
Hospitals were not pleased. But Verma claimed that since then CMS had been working with hospital organizations on enforcement.
“We’re going to do everything we can to facilitate reporting, including an enforcement timeline that will provide hospitals ample opportunity to come into compliance,” she said.
Hospitals that do not comply will get a notice every 3 weeks. Three weeks after the second notice, they’ll get weekly notices for a month, and a final termination notice at 14 weeks.
The Federation of American Hospitals (FAH), however, said their members were still not happy. “It is both inappropriate and frankly overkill for CMS to tie compliance with reporting to Medicare conditions of participation,” said FAH President and CEO Chip Kahn in a statement. He called the CMS proposal “sledgehammer enforcement,” and said that the continuing data request might weaken hospitals’ response to the pandemic because it would divert time and money away from patient care.
Rick Pollack, president and CEO of the American Hospital Association called the CMS rule an “overly heavy-handed approach that could jeopardize access to hospital care for all Americans.” He noted in a statement that barring hospitals from Medicare and Medicaid could harm beneficiaries and the effort to provide COVID care.
Pollack also noted that AHA has “observed errors in data processing and confusion about exactly what was being requested at the hospital, state, contractor, and federal level, and has worked diligently with the federal agencies to identify and correct those problems.”
The document that lays out U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Protect reporting requirements were updated again on October 6 to add influenza data. The hospitals must report on total patients with laboratory-confirmed flu; previous day’s flu admissions; total ICU patients with lab-confirmed flu; total inpatients with either flu or COVID-19; and the previous day’s deaths for flu and COVID.
CDC Director Robert Redfield, MD, said on the press call that the new data will give the agency crucial hospital-level information and perhaps better estimates of the flu burden. Flu trends have been tracked using the CDC’s Influenza Hospitalization Surveillance Network (FluSurv-NET), which will not be replaced, Redfield said. But that network only tracks hospitalizations in 14 states and does not provide information in “nearly real-time,” he said.
Having the new data “will give us a true situational awareness of severe respiratory illness, provide local hospitalization trends, and help direct resources such as antiretrovirals to address potential increased impact of flu and COVID cocirculation,” Redfield said.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A conversation on mental health and cancer
Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.
David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.
Lorenzo Norris, MD: Dr. Henry, thank you so very much. It’s always great to participate with the MDedge family and do a collaborative podcast, so I’m really looking forward to it.
Dr. Henry: I know you wrote a really nice article on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in breast cancer patients (Psychiatr Ann. 2011;41(9):439-42). So could you talk a bit about that -- what did you do, and what did you find using CBT for breast cancer patients?
Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.
So there are going to be various thoughts associated with that...One of the uses of CBT when working with patients is to help them think about and work with adaptive thoughts that are going to help them effectively cope as well as problem solve. So for instance, in regard to breast cancer, one of the first things that you’re going to want to do is just to think about, one, helping the patient understand where they’re at, because it’s going to be a shock level type of thing.
Make sure that they don’t have unnecessary or problematic distortions, whether it’s about the treatment, the prognosis, or what they themselves are capable of. And those three areas become actually rather important. Now with a diagnosis of cancer, a number of patients are going to have a period of adjustment. One of the first things that we’re thinking about is where do our patients fit along a continuum of distress.
They could be having an adjustment disorder or none whatsoever, just normal mood or an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. They could actually be in the midst of a unipolar depression. They could have a mood disorder secondary to the effects of the cancer itself. That would be more applicable to brain cancer or pancreatic cancer. Or they could have another category of mood disorder, such as a substance abuse mood disorder. But CBT is a very useful intervention, regardless of whether a person is having a normal syndrome of distress with a very challenging diagnosis or if they’re suffering from full-on psychiatric symptomatology such as a major depressive disorder.
Dr. Henry: In my practice I see a couple of things relevant to that discussion. I’ve always felt fear of the unknown is the worst fear, and fear of the known really helps you.
Medical students say to me sometimes, you just told this patient the same thing three times. They asked you the same thing three times. Well, I say, watch their eyes. Because as their eyes drift off, they’re thinking about their family, their financials, life and death. We’ve got to bring them on back because they’re afraid and not focused. I, in my amateur way, try and bring them back to the discussion to focus on what’s going on, what’s known, and how will we address it.
Interestingly, very rarely do I get, “So how long am I going to live?” You know, you see that in movies and Hollywood, and the doctor says six months, and it’s right on the button. I rarely get that question, because I think they’re afraid of the answer. If I do, I say, “Well, therapy works. You’ll do better and live on. If therapy doesn’t work, we got a problem, and it can be mortal”-- so they wouldn’t believe me if I just tiptoed around that-- but we have a second through-line. “I can always help you, win or lose.” So is that the similar way you approach those kinds of conversations?
Dr. Norris: Absolutely, Dr. Henry. I love how you described it in regard to that willingness, and I love how you described it to the medical students. A lot of being a physician or a healer is just that willingness to stay in a place with a patient and just repeat back the same thing in a different way until we make sure that they’ve heard it and we’ve heard it. And I think that’s very important.
But to get back to that “you have six months to live” type of thing. I actually find that patients actually do-- in my experience, do not immediately go there.
Dr. Henry: Agree. Agree.
Dr. Norris: There is the concept of...I wouldn’t even call that denial. But just that ability to focus on what is immediate. There are some aspects of protective denial. People intrinsically know how much information they need to focus on and deal with at the moment. Why focus on something that is outside of their control? Actually, when I see people jumping to conclusions like that, or catastrophizing, that’s a cognitive distortion. Black and white thinking is another cognitive distortion, as well as maladaptive denial, where you just kind of deny reality. Not discussing prognosis immediately--I would consider that focusing. Denying that you have cancer--that’s problematic denial to say the least.
Dr. Henry: Whole different problem.
Dr. Norris: I agree with you. I find that patients do not immediately jump to that in terms of prognosis or things of that nature. But their oncologist can do a great deal and actually level the distress just by doing what you did right there. Speaking with your patient three or four more times, repeating the same information, not using jargon, but also not sugarcoating anything, but giving what’s needed to get to the next step. And that’s probably what I think is one of the things that I focus on in therapy a lot. Let’s level the distress. Let’s focus on what’s needed to get to the next step and let’s not do anything that, if you’re not in a unipolar depression or major depression, could further exacerbate you developing it. So let’s stay focused on the treatment. And I find that a number of patients rally behind that.
Dr. Henry: Very well put, very well discussed. And we will have on our web page, the reference for the CBT article.
Dr. Norris: If you’re referring to the reference that was in an issue of “Psychiatric Annals,” that was a number of years ago. Because the actual reference you’re referring to (Psychiatr Ann. 2011;41(9):439-42) was part of a themed issue that I guest edited. It was called Cancer and Depression, and all the articles in there were focused on cancer. At that time, I was actually working with the American Cancer Society in regards to developing cancer survivorship guidelines.
Dr. Henry: So as we record this, of course, it’s the COVID era, and we’re taking care of patients with cancer who have to deal with the cancer and deal with themselves, family, and what’s happening in the world. I have found much more anxiety, much more depression than I’m used to seeing. Because they’re coming to see me, am I going to give it to them? Coming into the office, will they get it getting upstairs in our treatment area? So what are you seeing? And how are you handling taking care of patients with cancer in this time?
Dr. Norris: I hope everyone out there that’s listening is safe and well, and I hope your families are safe and well. The COVID pandemic has really unleashed something on the world as well as society that people have not seen basically since the Spanish Flu. But whether you’ve been through the AIDS epidemic or anything like that, you’ve never seen this.
So what are we seeing out there? We’re seeing that, definitively, more anxiety and depression across the board. We know that with the data now that’s been coming out that we are seeing an increase in anxiety and depression in the general population. The data in regard to cancer patients is limited, but we can start with what we know, and from that we can extrapolate and say that we would expect to see an increase in depression and anxiety.
We know that in cancer patients, depending on what study you look at, there’s going to be anywhere from a 0% to 38% prevalence of major depressive disorder and a 0% to 58% prevalence of any depressive spectrum disorder. Depending on the study, it’s going to level out somewhere around a 15% to 22% prevalence rate, regardless of cancer, of depressive symptoms. That’s usually across other medical conditions. Now the general rate of depression in a population is 6.6% with a 12-month prevalence. And the lifetime is 16.6%. So the take-home point is, with cancer, you have a two to four times greater risk of developing depression, whether you had it or not.
There’s a couple of reasons why we might be seeing an increase in depression and anxiety in this COVID era. One is isolation and lack of control. Due to quarantining and social isolation, our patients’ relationships with their oncologists can absolutely positively be disrupted. That is a very anxiety- and depression-inducing situation. One of the themes that came out of the survivorship literature when patients actually transition out of active treatment, one of the most distressing things for them, was the loss of their treatment team and their oncology provider. It almost can’t be said or overestimated the impact that the treatment team and a primary oncologist has on a patient’s life. I just wanted to make sure the audience realized that.
For your patients, you really, really, really are exceedingly important to them, as you are very much aware of that, but to levels you may or may not fully appreciate. So one of the things that COVID does, not only is it this deadly virus that our patients have to worry about in terms of it taking their life, as well as delaying treatment. It separates them from the people that have become paramount in their life, which for a number of folks is their oncology treatment team.
So when we take all of that into account, particularly isolation and loneliness, fragmentation, as well as any type of economic difficulties, that can be resulting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, you would absolutely suspect and predict that anxiety and depression in our patients would definitively increase. And a big part of that is them not being able to connect, certainly with others, but it’s [also] definitely their treatment team.
Dr. Henry: It’s been a stress on all of us, our caregivers as well as care receivers. And then back to putting on our regular oncology/hematology hats, seeing patients when COVID isn’t around. I remember a study long ago, maybe back when I was in training. I think it came out of Memorial Sloan Kettering.
It’s that fully 50% of our active advanced cancer patients are clinically depressed to the point where we should be considering intervention/medication. And if that’s still true, I’m a terrible doctor, because I am not recognizing and prescribing for that. Can you comment on how much depression and anxiety are in the average advanced cancer patient? And should we go after that in treatment?
Dr. Norris: When we’re talking about the advanced cancer patient, I definitely feel as though we should be screening as well as treating. Now as I mentioned before, in regards to the prevalence of depression or depressive spectrum disorders, it can be anywhere from 0% to 58%. In advanced stage cancer, you certainly are going to be thinking that risk is going to be high, probably anywhere from 25% to 33% or maybe even up to 50% of our patients can be suffering from symptoms of depression.
So when we’re talking about treating or referring, a big question you want to ask yourself is, what screening instrument are you using for depression? Some people argue just simply asking a patient whether they’re depressed or not would be perfectly acceptable. That is provided that you have enough time to do it, and you have enough time to follow up and you are pretty standardized with your approach.
However, clinicians just miss it. That’s well established and evidence-based. Clinicians just miss it. What I would recommend that folks consider doing is using the Patient Health Questionnaire, the two-question version called the PHQ-2 and the PHQ-9, the nine-question version. The PHQ-2 is actually a very good screening tool in regards to detecting depression. It has very good sensitivity and specificity.
And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.
So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?
With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.
For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:
1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.
2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.
3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.
When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.
The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.
And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.
And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.
But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”
When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.
Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.
Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.
Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.
And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.
Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.
Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.
And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.
Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.
To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.
Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.
Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.
David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.
Lorenzo Norris, MD: Dr. Henry, thank you so very much. It’s always great to participate with the MDedge family and do a collaborative podcast, so I’m really looking forward to it.
Dr. Henry: I know you wrote a really nice article on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in breast cancer patients (Psychiatr Ann. 2011;41(9):439-42). So could you talk a bit about that -- what did you do, and what did you find using CBT for breast cancer patients?
Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.
So there are going to be various thoughts associated with that...One of the uses of CBT when working with patients is to help them think about and work with adaptive thoughts that are going to help them effectively cope as well as problem solve. So for instance, in regard to breast cancer, one of the first things that you’re going to want to do is just to think about, one, helping the patient understand where they’re at, because it’s going to be a shock level type of thing.
Make sure that they don’t have unnecessary or problematic distortions, whether it’s about the treatment, the prognosis, or what they themselves are capable of. And those three areas become actually rather important. Now with a diagnosis of cancer, a number of patients are going to have a period of adjustment. One of the first things that we’re thinking about is where do our patients fit along a continuum of distress.
They could be having an adjustment disorder or none whatsoever, just normal mood or an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. They could actually be in the midst of a unipolar depression. They could have a mood disorder secondary to the effects of the cancer itself. That would be more applicable to brain cancer or pancreatic cancer. Or they could have another category of mood disorder, such as a substance abuse mood disorder. But CBT is a very useful intervention, regardless of whether a person is having a normal syndrome of distress with a very challenging diagnosis or if they’re suffering from full-on psychiatric symptomatology such as a major depressive disorder.
Dr. Henry: In my practice I see a couple of things relevant to that discussion. I’ve always felt fear of the unknown is the worst fear, and fear of the known really helps you.
Medical students say to me sometimes, you just told this patient the same thing three times. They asked you the same thing three times. Well, I say, watch their eyes. Because as their eyes drift off, they’re thinking about their family, their financials, life and death. We’ve got to bring them on back because they’re afraid and not focused. I, in my amateur way, try and bring them back to the discussion to focus on what’s going on, what’s known, and how will we address it.
Interestingly, very rarely do I get, “So how long am I going to live?” You know, you see that in movies and Hollywood, and the doctor says six months, and it’s right on the button. I rarely get that question, because I think they’re afraid of the answer. If I do, I say, “Well, therapy works. You’ll do better and live on. If therapy doesn’t work, we got a problem, and it can be mortal”-- so they wouldn’t believe me if I just tiptoed around that-- but we have a second through-line. “I can always help you, win or lose.” So is that the similar way you approach those kinds of conversations?
Dr. Norris: Absolutely, Dr. Henry. I love how you described it in regard to that willingness, and I love how you described it to the medical students. A lot of being a physician or a healer is just that willingness to stay in a place with a patient and just repeat back the same thing in a different way until we make sure that they’ve heard it and we’ve heard it. And I think that’s very important.
But to get back to that “you have six months to live” type of thing. I actually find that patients actually do-- in my experience, do not immediately go there.
Dr. Henry: Agree. Agree.
Dr. Norris: There is the concept of...I wouldn’t even call that denial. But just that ability to focus on what is immediate. There are some aspects of protective denial. People intrinsically know how much information they need to focus on and deal with at the moment. Why focus on something that is outside of their control? Actually, when I see people jumping to conclusions like that, or catastrophizing, that’s a cognitive distortion. Black and white thinking is another cognitive distortion, as well as maladaptive denial, where you just kind of deny reality. Not discussing prognosis immediately--I would consider that focusing. Denying that you have cancer--that’s problematic denial to say the least.
Dr. Henry: Whole different problem.
Dr. Norris: I agree with you. I find that patients do not immediately jump to that in terms of prognosis or things of that nature. But their oncologist can do a great deal and actually level the distress just by doing what you did right there. Speaking with your patient three or four more times, repeating the same information, not using jargon, but also not sugarcoating anything, but giving what’s needed to get to the next step. And that’s probably what I think is one of the things that I focus on in therapy a lot. Let’s level the distress. Let’s focus on what’s needed to get to the next step and let’s not do anything that, if you’re not in a unipolar depression or major depression, could further exacerbate you developing it. So let’s stay focused on the treatment. And I find that a number of patients rally behind that.
Dr. Henry: Very well put, very well discussed. And we will have on our web page, the reference for the CBT article.
Dr. Norris: If you’re referring to the reference that was in an issue of “Psychiatric Annals,” that was a number of years ago. Because the actual reference you’re referring to (Psychiatr Ann. 2011;41(9):439-42) was part of a themed issue that I guest edited. It was called Cancer and Depression, and all the articles in there were focused on cancer. At that time, I was actually working with the American Cancer Society in regards to developing cancer survivorship guidelines.
Dr. Henry: So as we record this, of course, it’s the COVID era, and we’re taking care of patients with cancer who have to deal with the cancer and deal with themselves, family, and what’s happening in the world. I have found much more anxiety, much more depression than I’m used to seeing. Because they’re coming to see me, am I going to give it to them? Coming into the office, will they get it getting upstairs in our treatment area? So what are you seeing? And how are you handling taking care of patients with cancer in this time?
Dr. Norris: I hope everyone out there that’s listening is safe and well, and I hope your families are safe and well. The COVID pandemic has really unleashed something on the world as well as society that people have not seen basically since the Spanish Flu. But whether you’ve been through the AIDS epidemic or anything like that, you’ve never seen this.
So what are we seeing out there? We’re seeing that, definitively, more anxiety and depression across the board. We know that with the data now that’s been coming out that we are seeing an increase in anxiety and depression in the general population. The data in regard to cancer patients is limited, but we can start with what we know, and from that we can extrapolate and say that we would expect to see an increase in depression and anxiety.
We know that in cancer patients, depending on what study you look at, there’s going to be anywhere from a 0% to 38% prevalence of major depressive disorder and a 0% to 58% prevalence of any depressive spectrum disorder. Depending on the study, it’s going to level out somewhere around a 15% to 22% prevalence rate, regardless of cancer, of depressive symptoms. That’s usually across other medical conditions. Now the general rate of depression in a population is 6.6% with a 12-month prevalence. And the lifetime is 16.6%. So the take-home point is, with cancer, you have a two to four times greater risk of developing depression, whether you had it or not.
There’s a couple of reasons why we might be seeing an increase in depression and anxiety in this COVID era. One is isolation and lack of control. Due to quarantining and social isolation, our patients’ relationships with their oncologists can absolutely positively be disrupted. That is a very anxiety- and depression-inducing situation. One of the themes that came out of the survivorship literature when patients actually transition out of active treatment, one of the most distressing things for them, was the loss of their treatment team and their oncology provider. It almost can’t be said or overestimated the impact that the treatment team and a primary oncologist has on a patient’s life. I just wanted to make sure the audience realized that.
For your patients, you really, really, really are exceedingly important to them, as you are very much aware of that, but to levels you may or may not fully appreciate. So one of the things that COVID does, not only is it this deadly virus that our patients have to worry about in terms of it taking their life, as well as delaying treatment. It separates them from the people that have become paramount in their life, which for a number of folks is their oncology treatment team.
So when we take all of that into account, particularly isolation and loneliness, fragmentation, as well as any type of economic difficulties, that can be resulting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, you would absolutely suspect and predict that anxiety and depression in our patients would definitively increase. And a big part of that is them not being able to connect, certainly with others, but it’s [also] definitely their treatment team.
Dr. Henry: It’s been a stress on all of us, our caregivers as well as care receivers. And then back to putting on our regular oncology/hematology hats, seeing patients when COVID isn’t around. I remember a study long ago, maybe back when I was in training. I think it came out of Memorial Sloan Kettering.
It’s that fully 50% of our active advanced cancer patients are clinically depressed to the point where we should be considering intervention/medication. And if that’s still true, I’m a terrible doctor, because I am not recognizing and prescribing for that. Can you comment on how much depression and anxiety are in the average advanced cancer patient? And should we go after that in treatment?
Dr. Norris: When we’re talking about the advanced cancer patient, I definitely feel as though we should be screening as well as treating. Now as I mentioned before, in regards to the prevalence of depression or depressive spectrum disorders, it can be anywhere from 0% to 58%. In advanced stage cancer, you certainly are going to be thinking that risk is going to be high, probably anywhere from 25% to 33% or maybe even up to 50% of our patients can be suffering from symptoms of depression.
So when we’re talking about treating or referring, a big question you want to ask yourself is, what screening instrument are you using for depression? Some people argue just simply asking a patient whether they’re depressed or not would be perfectly acceptable. That is provided that you have enough time to do it, and you have enough time to follow up and you are pretty standardized with your approach.
However, clinicians just miss it. That’s well established and evidence-based. Clinicians just miss it. What I would recommend that folks consider doing is using the Patient Health Questionnaire, the two-question version called the PHQ-2 and the PHQ-9, the nine-question version. The PHQ-2 is actually a very good screening tool in regards to detecting depression. It has very good sensitivity and specificity.
And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.
So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?
With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.
For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:
1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.
2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.
3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.
When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.
The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.
And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.
And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.
But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”
When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.
Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.
Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.
Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.
And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.
Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.
Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.
And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.
Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.
To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.
Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.
Editor’s Note: This transcript from the October 7 episode of Psychcast and the October 8 episode of Blood & Cancer has been edited for clarity.
David Henry, MD: Welcome to this episode of Blood And Cancer. I’m your host, Dr. David Henry, and I’m joined today by another host in the MDedge family, Dr. Lorenzo Norris, who is the host of MDedge Psychcast on MDedge.com or wherever you get your podcasts. He is associate dean of student affairs and administration at the George Washington School of Medicine in Washington, DC. Dr. Norris, thank you so much for taking the time to do this today.
Lorenzo Norris, MD: Dr. Henry, thank you so very much. It’s always great to participate with the MDedge family and do a collaborative podcast, so I’m really looking forward to it.
Dr. Henry: I know you wrote a really nice article on cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in breast cancer patients (Psychiatr Ann. 2011;41(9):439-42). So could you talk a bit about that -- what did you do, and what did you find using CBT for breast cancer patients?
Dr. Norris: CBT in a nutshell -- how you think influences greatly your emotions, which influences your behavior. Very simple and very powerful. With breast cancer, as an example, patients are dealing with a great deal of stress. They are literally fighting for their lives.
So there are going to be various thoughts associated with that...One of the uses of CBT when working with patients is to help them think about and work with adaptive thoughts that are going to help them effectively cope as well as problem solve. So for instance, in regard to breast cancer, one of the first things that you’re going to want to do is just to think about, one, helping the patient understand where they’re at, because it’s going to be a shock level type of thing.
Make sure that they don’t have unnecessary or problematic distortions, whether it’s about the treatment, the prognosis, or what they themselves are capable of. And those three areas become actually rather important. Now with a diagnosis of cancer, a number of patients are going to have a period of adjustment. One of the first things that we’re thinking about is where do our patients fit along a continuum of distress.
They could be having an adjustment disorder or none whatsoever, just normal mood or an adjustment disorder with depressed mood. They could actually be in the midst of a unipolar depression. They could have a mood disorder secondary to the effects of the cancer itself. That would be more applicable to brain cancer or pancreatic cancer. Or they could have another category of mood disorder, such as a substance abuse mood disorder. But CBT is a very useful intervention, regardless of whether a person is having a normal syndrome of distress with a very challenging diagnosis or if they’re suffering from full-on psychiatric symptomatology such as a major depressive disorder.
Dr. Henry: In my practice I see a couple of things relevant to that discussion. I’ve always felt fear of the unknown is the worst fear, and fear of the known really helps you.
Medical students say to me sometimes, you just told this patient the same thing three times. They asked you the same thing three times. Well, I say, watch their eyes. Because as their eyes drift off, they’re thinking about their family, their financials, life and death. We’ve got to bring them on back because they’re afraid and not focused. I, in my amateur way, try and bring them back to the discussion to focus on what’s going on, what’s known, and how will we address it.
Interestingly, very rarely do I get, “So how long am I going to live?” You know, you see that in movies and Hollywood, and the doctor says six months, and it’s right on the button. I rarely get that question, because I think they’re afraid of the answer. If I do, I say, “Well, therapy works. You’ll do better and live on. If therapy doesn’t work, we got a problem, and it can be mortal”-- so they wouldn’t believe me if I just tiptoed around that-- but we have a second through-line. “I can always help you, win or lose.” So is that the similar way you approach those kinds of conversations?
Dr. Norris: Absolutely, Dr. Henry. I love how you described it in regard to that willingness, and I love how you described it to the medical students. A lot of being a physician or a healer is just that willingness to stay in a place with a patient and just repeat back the same thing in a different way until we make sure that they’ve heard it and we’ve heard it. And I think that’s very important.
But to get back to that “you have six months to live” type of thing. I actually find that patients actually do-- in my experience, do not immediately go there.
Dr. Henry: Agree. Agree.
Dr. Norris: There is the concept of...I wouldn’t even call that denial. But just that ability to focus on what is immediate. There are some aspects of protective denial. People intrinsically know how much information they need to focus on and deal with at the moment. Why focus on something that is outside of their control? Actually, when I see people jumping to conclusions like that, or catastrophizing, that’s a cognitive distortion. Black and white thinking is another cognitive distortion, as well as maladaptive denial, where you just kind of deny reality. Not discussing prognosis immediately--I would consider that focusing. Denying that you have cancer--that’s problematic denial to say the least.
Dr. Henry: Whole different problem.
Dr. Norris: I agree with you. I find that patients do not immediately jump to that in terms of prognosis or things of that nature. But their oncologist can do a great deal and actually level the distress just by doing what you did right there. Speaking with your patient three or four more times, repeating the same information, not using jargon, but also not sugarcoating anything, but giving what’s needed to get to the next step. And that’s probably what I think is one of the things that I focus on in therapy a lot. Let’s level the distress. Let’s focus on what’s needed to get to the next step and let’s not do anything that, if you’re not in a unipolar depression or major depression, could further exacerbate you developing it. So let’s stay focused on the treatment. And I find that a number of patients rally behind that.
Dr. Henry: Very well put, very well discussed. And we will have on our web page, the reference for the CBT article.
Dr. Norris: If you’re referring to the reference that was in an issue of “Psychiatric Annals,” that was a number of years ago. Because the actual reference you’re referring to (Psychiatr Ann. 2011;41(9):439-42) was part of a themed issue that I guest edited. It was called Cancer and Depression, and all the articles in there were focused on cancer. At that time, I was actually working with the American Cancer Society in regards to developing cancer survivorship guidelines.
Dr. Henry: So as we record this, of course, it’s the COVID era, and we’re taking care of patients with cancer who have to deal with the cancer and deal with themselves, family, and what’s happening in the world. I have found much more anxiety, much more depression than I’m used to seeing. Because they’re coming to see me, am I going to give it to them? Coming into the office, will they get it getting upstairs in our treatment area? So what are you seeing? And how are you handling taking care of patients with cancer in this time?
Dr. Norris: I hope everyone out there that’s listening is safe and well, and I hope your families are safe and well. The COVID pandemic has really unleashed something on the world as well as society that people have not seen basically since the Spanish Flu. But whether you’ve been through the AIDS epidemic or anything like that, you’ve never seen this.
So what are we seeing out there? We’re seeing that, definitively, more anxiety and depression across the board. We know that with the data now that’s been coming out that we are seeing an increase in anxiety and depression in the general population. The data in regard to cancer patients is limited, but we can start with what we know, and from that we can extrapolate and say that we would expect to see an increase in depression and anxiety.
We know that in cancer patients, depending on what study you look at, there’s going to be anywhere from a 0% to 38% prevalence of major depressive disorder and a 0% to 58% prevalence of any depressive spectrum disorder. Depending on the study, it’s going to level out somewhere around a 15% to 22% prevalence rate, regardless of cancer, of depressive symptoms. That’s usually across other medical conditions. Now the general rate of depression in a population is 6.6% with a 12-month prevalence. And the lifetime is 16.6%. So the take-home point is, with cancer, you have a two to four times greater risk of developing depression, whether you had it or not.
There’s a couple of reasons why we might be seeing an increase in depression and anxiety in this COVID era. One is isolation and lack of control. Due to quarantining and social isolation, our patients’ relationships with their oncologists can absolutely positively be disrupted. That is a very anxiety- and depression-inducing situation. One of the themes that came out of the survivorship literature when patients actually transition out of active treatment, one of the most distressing things for them, was the loss of their treatment team and their oncology provider. It almost can’t be said or overestimated the impact that the treatment team and a primary oncologist has on a patient’s life. I just wanted to make sure the audience realized that.
For your patients, you really, really, really are exceedingly important to them, as you are very much aware of that, but to levels you may or may not fully appreciate. So one of the things that COVID does, not only is it this deadly virus that our patients have to worry about in terms of it taking their life, as well as delaying treatment. It separates them from the people that have become paramount in their life, which for a number of folks is their oncology treatment team.
So when we take all of that into account, particularly isolation and loneliness, fragmentation, as well as any type of economic difficulties, that can be resulting due to the COVID-19 pandemic, you would absolutely suspect and predict that anxiety and depression in our patients would definitively increase. And a big part of that is them not being able to connect, certainly with others, but it’s [also] definitely their treatment team.
Dr. Henry: It’s been a stress on all of us, our caregivers as well as care receivers. And then back to putting on our regular oncology/hematology hats, seeing patients when COVID isn’t around. I remember a study long ago, maybe back when I was in training. I think it came out of Memorial Sloan Kettering.
It’s that fully 50% of our active advanced cancer patients are clinically depressed to the point where we should be considering intervention/medication. And if that’s still true, I’m a terrible doctor, because I am not recognizing and prescribing for that. Can you comment on how much depression and anxiety are in the average advanced cancer patient? And should we go after that in treatment?
Dr. Norris: When we’re talking about the advanced cancer patient, I definitely feel as though we should be screening as well as treating. Now as I mentioned before, in regards to the prevalence of depression or depressive spectrum disorders, it can be anywhere from 0% to 58%. In advanced stage cancer, you certainly are going to be thinking that risk is going to be high, probably anywhere from 25% to 33% or maybe even up to 50% of our patients can be suffering from symptoms of depression.
So when we’re talking about treating or referring, a big question you want to ask yourself is, what screening instrument are you using for depression? Some people argue just simply asking a patient whether they’re depressed or not would be perfectly acceptable. That is provided that you have enough time to do it, and you have enough time to follow up and you are pretty standardized with your approach.
However, clinicians just miss it. That’s well established and evidence-based. Clinicians just miss it. What I would recommend that folks consider doing is using the Patient Health Questionnaire, the two-question version called the PHQ-2 and the PHQ-9, the nine-question version. The PHQ-2 is actually a very good screening tool in regards to detecting depression. It has very good sensitivity and specificity.
And that’s going to allow you to actually think about or to screen for patients that you’re going to need to refer for treatment. So if you have a patient with advanced cancer, as an example, and you use the PHQ-2 or PHQ-9, then that’s going to give you a very evidence-based avenue in which to refer for treatment. Now you may be asking yourself, maybe I don’t want to use a PHQ-2 or 9, or I’m in a community practice or a private practice, I just don’t have the bandwidth to process this.
So I want to go off of just my own patient interaction. What are things that I can cue on?
With a patient with cancer, there’s going to be roughly four things that we’re considering in terms of depressive spectrum disorders: Adjustment disorder with depressed mood, major depression, a mood disorder due to cancer itself, or substance-induced mood disorder.
For our audience I want you to concentrate on right now on adjustment disorder with depressed mood and major depression. Now when you look at the evidence, there are roughly nine things that some people like to think about in regard to depressive symptoms to key on. For all of us as health practitioners, these are the things I would like for you to focus on in particular:
1. Non-adherence with treatment for cancer.
2. Impairment of their social or occupational function.
3. Your patient becomes demoralized when they start to lose a little bit of confidence or hope.
When you have those three things, or any one of them, in an advanced stage of cancer, with or without a PHQ screening, you need to really think about how you’re going to refer this patient for treatment. So we can break this down into three different types of interventions. One, the biggest thing, is just to ask, “How are you feeling? What is your mood? Are you suffering from a clinical depression?” You know, take a little bit of inspiration from Dr. Henry. Just give it to people straight and just ask. That’s the biggest thing people don’t do. They don’t ask.
The next thing, if you want to use an evidence-based scale, use a PHQ-2...You would have to follow up, but you-- rather you’re practicing solo or in a group practice or whether you have, your nurse or PA -- they generally assist with that.
And then the third thing is, when you’re interacting with the patient, look for those three things that I talked about: Non-adherence with treatment, impairment of social or occupational function, and then demoralization.
And then the final thing I want to focus on, because you can’t talk about depression without talking about suicide or really significant distress. Obviously, you can ask and you should ask about suicide if that is in your wheelhouse, but to be perfectly frank, most oncologists are not going to-- or most people outside of psychiatrists aren’t going to necessarily just routinely ask that question.
But here’s what I would say. It’s an old one but it’s a good one: Listen to that little voice. Listen to that little voice, all right? Depending on the evidence that you look at, a lot of detecting suicide can be aided by a clinician listening to their own gut instincts. What I mean by that is, you feel a sense of distress. You feel a sense of lack of connection. You find yourself [saying], “Wait a minute, why do I want to call that patient and checkup? Why do I want to reach out?”
When you start to feel like this, you need to listen. More importantly, you need to stop and then you need to make sure that that patient has a referral in place.
Dr. Henry: So they’re just tuning out so badly, you’re really losing the connection, and that’s when your little voice talks to you.
Dr. Norris: Exactly. Well said, Dr. Henry. Well said.
Dr. Henry: In my long career, drug abuse, narcotics, and suicide have been extremely rare. I can think of one patient who was a drug abuser with cancer, or it turned out she was a drug abuser before she had cancer. And then suicide, really quite rare. I’m sure they occur, and we have to watch for them, as you say, but fortunately I’ve not seen that so much. Thanks to your comments, I want to be sure I’m watching and looking.
And the PHQ-2 and -9, I’m sure, with so many of us having electronic medical records, you can simply Google while you’re talking to the patient for those two questionnaires and say, oh, you know, how about you answer these two questions, these nine questions, and see how many points the patient gets and worry about referral or even medication yourself if it looks like an antidepressant is in order.
Dr. Norris: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Dr. Henry: Well, I think we’ve covered an awful lot of ground. I really want to thank you. Any get-away thoughts? We worry about the cognitive behavioral therapy. We worry about it, and we should listen to it and do it.
Practicing in the COVID era is stressful for all of us. I told Dr. Norris at the outset, if I broke down and started baring my soul, he wouldn’t be surprised. Fortunately, I’ve kept it together while talking to a psychiatrist.
And finally watch for clinically significant depression, either by your own questions, which you’ve outlined, or the PHQ-2 and -9.
Really appreciate your thoughts today. Lorenzo, thanks so much for taking the time to do this today.
To hear the entire conversation, go to mdedge.com/podcasts or listen wherever you find your podcasts. David Henry, MD, is a clinical professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and vice chairman of the department of medicine at Pennsylvania Hospital in Philadelphia. He is editor in chief of MDedge Hematology-Oncology and the host of the Blood & Cancer podcast. Dr. Henry reported being on the advisory board for Amgen, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, and Pharmacosmos. He reported institutional funding from the National Institutes of Health and FibroGen.
Lorenzo Norris, MD, is host of the MDedge Psychcast, editor in chief of MDedge Psychiatry, and assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington. He also serves as assistant dean of student affairs at the university, and medical director of psychiatric and behavioral sciences at GWU Hospital. Dr. Lorenzo Norris has no conflicts.
Everything I want to tell my adult ADHD patients during the pandemic
An ADHD brain thrives with daily routines, and requires spontaneity and challenge to remain engaged in work, academics, relationships, and even leisure activities. ADHD is a performance issue and not one of intellectual understanding. It is not a problem of knowing what to do, but rather, difficulty doing it.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the loss of structure, with many parents working out of their homes alongside their children engaged in virtual learning. There has been a significant loss of impromptu events, since all activities outside of the house require proper planning and safety precautions.
To help normalize the struggles of the adult patient with ADHD during the pandemic, when others’ coping strategies do not work for their ADHD brains.
Adult ADHD is a misnomer – and not just a disorder of inattention and hyperactivity
A better name for this often misconstrued disorder is inconsistent attention and motivation disorder with internal or external hyperactivity/impulsivity.
An ADHD brain vacillates between inattention and hyperfocus. It is not uncommon for individuals with ADHD to lose interest in a new television series when they become hyperfocused on finding the best pandemic-friendly toy for their 5-year-olds, which inevitably turns into a 3-hour Google rabbit-hole search.
These same individuals with ADHD may have low motivation for mundane household chores but become highly motivated when their nonessential Amazon purchases arrive. They may even go as far as pulling an all-nighter to have an electric toy jeep built and ready for the youngster by morning.
Adults with ADHD can also exhibit hyperactive symptoms, such as physical restlessness with fidgeting, and an internal restlessness with anxious and repetitive thoughts that affect their ability to unwind, relax, and even sleep. Impulsivity in adults with ADHD can present as rushing through tasks that one finds uninteresting or unimportant, interrupting others on a Zoom work call, or impulse buying an expensive hot tub instead of a more affordable on their spouse agreed to.
ADHD is a risk factor for contracting COVID-19
Untreated ADHD can increase one’s risk of contracting COVID-19. Israeli researchers published a study in the Journal of Attention Disorders showing that individuals with ADHD are 52% more likely to test positive for COVID-19, compared with those without ADHD, because of risk-taking behaviors, impulsivity, and carelessness. However, individuals whose ADHD symptoms are treated with stimulant medication do not increase their risk of contracting COVID-19, the researchers wrote.
ADHD might be noticed in family members
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects the development of the brain. We know that structural, functional, and chemical differences affect our patients’ ability to regulate attention, motivation, impulses, and emotions. ADHD tends to run in families and is highly genetic. Since spending more time with family members during the pandemic, patients might even recognize ADHD symptoms in siblings, children, and one or both of parents. A child who has ADHD has a 25% chance of having a parent with ADHD.
Strengths and attributes are related to ADHD
Your ability to thrive in new, stressful, and challenging situations is an ADHD attribute that will be beneficial during the pandemic. Creativity, great problem-solving skills, and ability to be flexible will be admired and helpful to our patients with ADHD and others during these uncertain times.
Those with ADHD might be highly sensitive to their environments
As previously mentioned, ADHD is a misnomer and not just a disorder of inattention but also too much attention. Unfortunately, this hyperfocused attention is usually on the wrong things. Those with ADHD might find it difficult to filter and process sensory information correctly and, therefore, can be easily distracted by auditory, visual, tactile, and olfactory stimuli. The change to working at home during the pandemic might make it hard to ignore children’s voices, the uncomfortable new mask bought after losing yet another mask over the weekend, and the smell of cookies emanating from the kitchen. This increased sensitivity may affect one’s emotions.
Heightened emotions are expected during the pandemic and even more so among adults with ADHD. The inability of adults with ADHD to properly filter information can also affect emotional stimuli. These intense emotions, coupled with impulsive behaviors, can cause disagreements with partners, lack of patience with children, and conflict with colleagues. When individuals with ADHD feel attacked or invalidated, they can become emotionally dysregulated and “vomit” their pent up feelings.
ADHD may affect interpersonal relationships
ADHD symptoms of inattention and impulsivity can affect the ability to connect with friends and family. When one is easily distracted by the pandemic’s chaos, it is harder to be mindful and emotionally and physically connected to one’s partner, which also disrupts their sex life and intimacy.
ADHD sensory integration issues can make people sensitive to particular touches, smells, and sensory information. A gentle touch from one’s partner might be annoying during the pandemic, since other senses may already be overstimulated by the loud sounds of children screaming, the visual and auditory distractions of a neighbor mowing the lawn, and the sun beating down because one forgot to get blinds in the home office before the pandemic.
These minor distractions that are usually insignificant to a non-ADHD brain can profoundly affect an ADHD brain since one must use valuable energy to tune out these unwanted disturbances.
Your brain uses a different motivational system than a non-ADHD brain
You have a deficiency in the neurotransmitter dopamine, which affects your motivational system. Your motivational system is based on what you find interesting, challenging, new, exciting, and urgent. Your non-ADHD partner, family members, friends, and colleagues motivate and accomplish their daily tasks differently from you and most likely use a system based on rewards and consequences.
Do not be surprised if you notice that your motivation is diminished during the pandemic because of less novelty and excitement in your life. The coronavirus’s chronic importance level may make everything else in your life not as essential and, therefore, less urgent, which indirectly also lowers your motivation.
Your non-ADHD partner may see that you can focus, prioritize, initiate, and complete tasks when you “choose” to, and confuse your inconsistent behaviors as being within your control. However, this lack of motivation for things that do not pique your interest, challenge you, and are not urgent is not voluntary. It is caused by a lack of neural connections in the area of the brain that controls motivation.
You can still have ADHD even though you were not diagnosed as a child or adolescent
Your symptoms of ADHD may not affect your level of functioning until you go away to college, obtain your first job, marry your partner, start a family, or even until a global pandemic alters every aspect of your daily life.
It is, therefore, never too late to get assessed and treated for ADHD. Stimulants are the first line of treatment for adult ADHD. Nonstimulants may also be prescribed if you do not tolerate the side effects of stimulants or have a history of certain medical conditions. These options include some antidepressants and high blood pressure medicines. Sometimes, just identifying the deficits of those with ADHD and how they may affect their performance at work, school, and interpersonal relationships can help the person living with ADHD. Many other any nonmedication types of effective treatment are available for adults with ADHD, including therapy, executive skills, and mindfulness training.
- ADHD focused cognitive-behavioral therapy can help one change your distorted, negative, and irrational thoughts about themselves, others, and situations and replace them with more realistic and rational thoughts that allow for helpful and adaptive behaviors.
- Executive skills training is a type of ADHD treatment that focuses on developing effective systems, routines, improving time management, organization, planning, productivity, and emotional self-regulation.
- Mindfulness meditation training is an additional treatment for adult ADHD. Mindfulness training teaches skills to focus on the present moment and become aware of one’s thoughts, emotions, and actions without judgment. The goal is to learn to accept your ADHD deficits and all that is out of your control while remaining mindful of your ADHD strengths and focusing on the daily choices within your control.
Silver linings of the pandemic
Numerous underserved and rural geographic areas lack adequate psychiatric care. Many primary care physicians and even some psychiatrists are uncomfortable diagnosing and treating attentional disorders because of a lack of proper training in medical school and fear related to the fact that the first-line treatment for adult ADHD is a controlled substance.
In response to the pandemic, the expansion of telepsychiatry services, state waivers that allow clinicians to practice across state lines, exemptions that enable the prescribing of controlled substances without an in-person medical evaluation, and the acceptance of employees working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the accessibility of adult ADHD psychiatric assessments and treatment.
It is hoped that when the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us, many of the benefits that have emerged, such as the growth of telepsychiatry, changes in state licensure and prescriber regulations, and reduced work commutes will continue into our postpandemic lives.
Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.
An ADHD brain thrives with daily routines, and requires spontaneity and challenge to remain engaged in work, academics, relationships, and even leisure activities. ADHD is a performance issue and not one of intellectual understanding. It is not a problem of knowing what to do, but rather, difficulty doing it.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the loss of structure, with many parents working out of their homes alongside their children engaged in virtual learning. There has been a significant loss of impromptu events, since all activities outside of the house require proper planning and safety precautions.
To help normalize the struggles of the adult patient with ADHD during the pandemic, when others’ coping strategies do not work for their ADHD brains.
Adult ADHD is a misnomer – and not just a disorder of inattention and hyperactivity
A better name for this often misconstrued disorder is inconsistent attention and motivation disorder with internal or external hyperactivity/impulsivity.
An ADHD brain vacillates between inattention and hyperfocus. It is not uncommon for individuals with ADHD to lose interest in a new television series when they become hyperfocused on finding the best pandemic-friendly toy for their 5-year-olds, which inevitably turns into a 3-hour Google rabbit-hole search.
These same individuals with ADHD may have low motivation for mundane household chores but become highly motivated when their nonessential Amazon purchases arrive. They may even go as far as pulling an all-nighter to have an electric toy jeep built and ready for the youngster by morning.
Adults with ADHD can also exhibit hyperactive symptoms, such as physical restlessness with fidgeting, and an internal restlessness with anxious and repetitive thoughts that affect their ability to unwind, relax, and even sleep. Impulsivity in adults with ADHD can present as rushing through tasks that one finds uninteresting or unimportant, interrupting others on a Zoom work call, or impulse buying an expensive hot tub instead of a more affordable on their spouse agreed to.
ADHD is a risk factor for contracting COVID-19
Untreated ADHD can increase one’s risk of contracting COVID-19. Israeli researchers published a study in the Journal of Attention Disorders showing that individuals with ADHD are 52% more likely to test positive for COVID-19, compared with those without ADHD, because of risk-taking behaviors, impulsivity, and carelessness. However, individuals whose ADHD symptoms are treated with stimulant medication do not increase their risk of contracting COVID-19, the researchers wrote.
ADHD might be noticed in family members
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects the development of the brain. We know that structural, functional, and chemical differences affect our patients’ ability to regulate attention, motivation, impulses, and emotions. ADHD tends to run in families and is highly genetic. Since spending more time with family members during the pandemic, patients might even recognize ADHD symptoms in siblings, children, and one or both of parents. A child who has ADHD has a 25% chance of having a parent with ADHD.
Strengths and attributes are related to ADHD
Your ability to thrive in new, stressful, and challenging situations is an ADHD attribute that will be beneficial during the pandemic. Creativity, great problem-solving skills, and ability to be flexible will be admired and helpful to our patients with ADHD and others during these uncertain times.
Those with ADHD might be highly sensitive to their environments
As previously mentioned, ADHD is a misnomer and not just a disorder of inattention but also too much attention. Unfortunately, this hyperfocused attention is usually on the wrong things. Those with ADHD might find it difficult to filter and process sensory information correctly and, therefore, can be easily distracted by auditory, visual, tactile, and olfactory stimuli. The change to working at home during the pandemic might make it hard to ignore children’s voices, the uncomfortable new mask bought after losing yet another mask over the weekend, and the smell of cookies emanating from the kitchen. This increased sensitivity may affect one’s emotions.
Heightened emotions are expected during the pandemic and even more so among adults with ADHD. The inability of adults with ADHD to properly filter information can also affect emotional stimuli. These intense emotions, coupled with impulsive behaviors, can cause disagreements with partners, lack of patience with children, and conflict with colleagues. When individuals with ADHD feel attacked or invalidated, they can become emotionally dysregulated and “vomit” their pent up feelings.
ADHD may affect interpersonal relationships
ADHD symptoms of inattention and impulsivity can affect the ability to connect with friends and family. When one is easily distracted by the pandemic’s chaos, it is harder to be mindful and emotionally and physically connected to one’s partner, which also disrupts their sex life and intimacy.
ADHD sensory integration issues can make people sensitive to particular touches, smells, and sensory information. A gentle touch from one’s partner might be annoying during the pandemic, since other senses may already be overstimulated by the loud sounds of children screaming, the visual and auditory distractions of a neighbor mowing the lawn, and the sun beating down because one forgot to get blinds in the home office before the pandemic.
These minor distractions that are usually insignificant to a non-ADHD brain can profoundly affect an ADHD brain since one must use valuable energy to tune out these unwanted disturbances.
Your brain uses a different motivational system than a non-ADHD brain
You have a deficiency in the neurotransmitter dopamine, which affects your motivational system. Your motivational system is based on what you find interesting, challenging, new, exciting, and urgent. Your non-ADHD partner, family members, friends, and colleagues motivate and accomplish their daily tasks differently from you and most likely use a system based on rewards and consequences.
Do not be surprised if you notice that your motivation is diminished during the pandemic because of less novelty and excitement in your life. The coronavirus’s chronic importance level may make everything else in your life not as essential and, therefore, less urgent, which indirectly also lowers your motivation.
Your non-ADHD partner may see that you can focus, prioritize, initiate, and complete tasks when you “choose” to, and confuse your inconsistent behaviors as being within your control. However, this lack of motivation for things that do not pique your interest, challenge you, and are not urgent is not voluntary. It is caused by a lack of neural connections in the area of the brain that controls motivation.
You can still have ADHD even though you were not diagnosed as a child or adolescent
Your symptoms of ADHD may not affect your level of functioning until you go away to college, obtain your first job, marry your partner, start a family, or even until a global pandemic alters every aspect of your daily life.
It is, therefore, never too late to get assessed and treated for ADHD. Stimulants are the first line of treatment for adult ADHD. Nonstimulants may also be prescribed if you do not tolerate the side effects of stimulants or have a history of certain medical conditions. These options include some antidepressants and high blood pressure medicines. Sometimes, just identifying the deficits of those with ADHD and how they may affect their performance at work, school, and interpersonal relationships can help the person living with ADHD. Many other any nonmedication types of effective treatment are available for adults with ADHD, including therapy, executive skills, and mindfulness training.
- ADHD focused cognitive-behavioral therapy can help one change your distorted, negative, and irrational thoughts about themselves, others, and situations and replace them with more realistic and rational thoughts that allow for helpful and adaptive behaviors.
- Executive skills training is a type of ADHD treatment that focuses on developing effective systems, routines, improving time management, organization, planning, productivity, and emotional self-regulation.
- Mindfulness meditation training is an additional treatment for adult ADHD. Mindfulness training teaches skills to focus on the present moment and become aware of one’s thoughts, emotions, and actions without judgment. The goal is to learn to accept your ADHD deficits and all that is out of your control while remaining mindful of your ADHD strengths and focusing on the daily choices within your control.
Silver linings of the pandemic
Numerous underserved and rural geographic areas lack adequate psychiatric care. Many primary care physicians and even some psychiatrists are uncomfortable diagnosing and treating attentional disorders because of a lack of proper training in medical school and fear related to the fact that the first-line treatment for adult ADHD is a controlled substance.
In response to the pandemic, the expansion of telepsychiatry services, state waivers that allow clinicians to practice across state lines, exemptions that enable the prescribing of controlled substances without an in-person medical evaluation, and the acceptance of employees working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the accessibility of adult ADHD psychiatric assessments and treatment.
It is hoped that when the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us, many of the benefits that have emerged, such as the growth of telepsychiatry, changes in state licensure and prescriber regulations, and reduced work commutes will continue into our postpandemic lives.
Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.
An ADHD brain thrives with daily routines, and requires spontaneity and challenge to remain engaged in work, academics, relationships, and even leisure activities. ADHD is a performance issue and not one of intellectual understanding. It is not a problem of knowing what to do, but rather, difficulty doing it.
The COVID-19 pandemic has led to the loss of structure, with many parents working out of their homes alongside their children engaged in virtual learning. There has been a significant loss of impromptu events, since all activities outside of the house require proper planning and safety precautions.
To help normalize the struggles of the adult patient with ADHD during the pandemic, when others’ coping strategies do not work for their ADHD brains.
Adult ADHD is a misnomer – and not just a disorder of inattention and hyperactivity
A better name for this often misconstrued disorder is inconsistent attention and motivation disorder with internal or external hyperactivity/impulsivity.
An ADHD brain vacillates between inattention and hyperfocus. It is not uncommon for individuals with ADHD to lose interest in a new television series when they become hyperfocused on finding the best pandemic-friendly toy for their 5-year-olds, which inevitably turns into a 3-hour Google rabbit-hole search.
These same individuals with ADHD may have low motivation for mundane household chores but become highly motivated when their nonessential Amazon purchases arrive. They may even go as far as pulling an all-nighter to have an electric toy jeep built and ready for the youngster by morning.
Adults with ADHD can also exhibit hyperactive symptoms, such as physical restlessness with fidgeting, and an internal restlessness with anxious and repetitive thoughts that affect their ability to unwind, relax, and even sleep. Impulsivity in adults with ADHD can present as rushing through tasks that one finds uninteresting or unimportant, interrupting others on a Zoom work call, or impulse buying an expensive hot tub instead of a more affordable on their spouse agreed to.
ADHD is a risk factor for contracting COVID-19
Untreated ADHD can increase one’s risk of contracting COVID-19. Israeli researchers published a study in the Journal of Attention Disorders showing that individuals with ADHD are 52% more likely to test positive for COVID-19, compared with those without ADHD, because of risk-taking behaviors, impulsivity, and carelessness. However, individuals whose ADHD symptoms are treated with stimulant medication do not increase their risk of contracting COVID-19, the researchers wrote.
ADHD might be noticed in family members
ADHD is a neurodevelopmental disorder that affects the development of the brain. We know that structural, functional, and chemical differences affect our patients’ ability to regulate attention, motivation, impulses, and emotions. ADHD tends to run in families and is highly genetic. Since spending more time with family members during the pandemic, patients might even recognize ADHD symptoms in siblings, children, and one or both of parents. A child who has ADHD has a 25% chance of having a parent with ADHD.
Strengths and attributes are related to ADHD
Your ability to thrive in new, stressful, and challenging situations is an ADHD attribute that will be beneficial during the pandemic. Creativity, great problem-solving skills, and ability to be flexible will be admired and helpful to our patients with ADHD and others during these uncertain times.
Those with ADHD might be highly sensitive to their environments
As previously mentioned, ADHD is a misnomer and not just a disorder of inattention but also too much attention. Unfortunately, this hyperfocused attention is usually on the wrong things. Those with ADHD might find it difficult to filter and process sensory information correctly and, therefore, can be easily distracted by auditory, visual, tactile, and olfactory stimuli. The change to working at home during the pandemic might make it hard to ignore children’s voices, the uncomfortable new mask bought after losing yet another mask over the weekend, and the smell of cookies emanating from the kitchen. This increased sensitivity may affect one’s emotions.
Heightened emotions are expected during the pandemic and even more so among adults with ADHD. The inability of adults with ADHD to properly filter information can also affect emotional stimuli. These intense emotions, coupled with impulsive behaviors, can cause disagreements with partners, lack of patience with children, and conflict with colleagues. When individuals with ADHD feel attacked or invalidated, they can become emotionally dysregulated and “vomit” their pent up feelings.
ADHD may affect interpersonal relationships
ADHD symptoms of inattention and impulsivity can affect the ability to connect with friends and family. When one is easily distracted by the pandemic’s chaos, it is harder to be mindful and emotionally and physically connected to one’s partner, which also disrupts their sex life and intimacy.
ADHD sensory integration issues can make people sensitive to particular touches, smells, and sensory information. A gentle touch from one’s partner might be annoying during the pandemic, since other senses may already be overstimulated by the loud sounds of children screaming, the visual and auditory distractions of a neighbor mowing the lawn, and the sun beating down because one forgot to get blinds in the home office before the pandemic.
These minor distractions that are usually insignificant to a non-ADHD brain can profoundly affect an ADHD brain since one must use valuable energy to tune out these unwanted disturbances.
Your brain uses a different motivational system than a non-ADHD brain
You have a deficiency in the neurotransmitter dopamine, which affects your motivational system. Your motivational system is based on what you find interesting, challenging, new, exciting, and urgent. Your non-ADHD partner, family members, friends, and colleagues motivate and accomplish their daily tasks differently from you and most likely use a system based on rewards and consequences.
Do not be surprised if you notice that your motivation is diminished during the pandemic because of less novelty and excitement in your life. The coronavirus’s chronic importance level may make everything else in your life not as essential and, therefore, less urgent, which indirectly also lowers your motivation.
Your non-ADHD partner may see that you can focus, prioritize, initiate, and complete tasks when you “choose” to, and confuse your inconsistent behaviors as being within your control. However, this lack of motivation for things that do not pique your interest, challenge you, and are not urgent is not voluntary. It is caused by a lack of neural connections in the area of the brain that controls motivation.
You can still have ADHD even though you were not diagnosed as a child or adolescent
Your symptoms of ADHD may not affect your level of functioning until you go away to college, obtain your first job, marry your partner, start a family, or even until a global pandemic alters every aspect of your daily life.
It is, therefore, never too late to get assessed and treated for ADHD. Stimulants are the first line of treatment for adult ADHD. Nonstimulants may also be prescribed if you do not tolerate the side effects of stimulants or have a history of certain medical conditions. These options include some antidepressants and high blood pressure medicines. Sometimes, just identifying the deficits of those with ADHD and how they may affect their performance at work, school, and interpersonal relationships can help the person living with ADHD. Many other any nonmedication types of effective treatment are available for adults with ADHD, including therapy, executive skills, and mindfulness training.
- ADHD focused cognitive-behavioral therapy can help one change your distorted, negative, and irrational thoughts about themselves, others, and situations and replace them with more realistic and rational thoughts that allow for helpful and adaptive behaviors.
- Executive skills training is a type of ADHD treatment that focuses on developing effective systems, routines, improving time management, organization, planning, productivity, and emotional self-regulation.
- Mindfulness meditation training is an additional treatment for adult ADHD. Mindfulness training teaches skills to focus on the present moment and become aware of one’s thoughts, emotions, and actions without judgment. The goal is to learn to accept your ADHD deficits and all that is out of your control while remaining mindful of your ADHD strengths and focusing on the daily choices within your control.
Silver linings of the pandemic
Numerous underserved and rural geographic areas lack adequate psychiatric care. Many primary care physicians and even some psychiatrists are uncomfortable diagnosing and treating attentional disorders because of a lack of proper training in medical school and fear related to the fact that the first-line treatment for adult ADHD is a controlled substance.
In response to the pandemic, the expansion of telepsychiatry services, state waivers that allow clinicians to practice across state lines, exemptions that enable the prescribing of controlled substances without an in-person medical evaluation, and the acceptance of employees working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic have increased the accessibility of adult ADHD psychiatric assessments and treatment.
It is hoped that when the COVID-19 pandemic is behind us, many of the benefits that have emerged, such as the growth of telepsychiatry, changes in state licensure and prescriber regulations, and reduced work commutes will continue into our postpandemic lives.
Dr. Abraham is a psychiatrist in private practice in Philadelphia. She has no disclosures.