MDedge Psychiatry

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When OpenAI released ChatGPT-3 publicly last November, some doctors decided to try out the free AI tool that learns language and writes human-like text. Some physicians found the chatbot made mistakes and stopped using it, while others were happy with the results and plan to use it more often.

“We’ve played around with it. It was very early on in AI and we noticed it gave us incorrect information with regards to clinical guidance,” said Monalisa Tailor, MD, an internal medicine physician at Norton Health Care in Louisville, Ky. “We decided not to pursue it further,” she said.

Orthopedic spine surgeon Daniel Choi, MD, who owns a small medical/surgical practice in Long Island, New York, tested the chatbot’s performance with a few administrative tasks, including writing a job listing for an administrator and prior authorization letters.

He was enthusiastic. “A well-polished job posting that would usually take me 2-3 hours to write was done in 5 minutes,” Dr. Choi said. “I was blown away by the writing – it was much better than anything I could write.”

The chatbot can also automate administrative tasks in doctors’ practices from appointment scheduling and billing to clinical documentation, saving doctors time and money, experts say.

Most physicians are proceeding cautiously. About 10% of more than 500 medical group leaders, responding to a March poll by the Medical Group Management Association, said their practices regularly use AI tools.

More than half of the respondents not using AI said they first want more evidence that the technology works as intended.

“None of them work as advertised,” said one respondent.

MGMA practice management consultant Dawn Plested acknowledges that many of the physician practices she’s worked with are still wary. “I have yet to encounter a practice that is using any AI tool, even something as low-risk as appointment scheduling,” she said.

Physician groups may be concerned about the costs and logistics of integrating ChatGPT with their electronic health record systems (EHRs) and how that would work, said Ms. Plested.

Doctors may also be skeptical of AI based on their experience with EHRs, she said.

“They were promoted as a panacea to many problems; they were supposed to automate business practice, reduce staff and clinician’s work, and improve billing/coding/documentation. Unfortunately, they have become a major source of frustration for doctors,” said Ms. Plested.
 

Drawing the line at patient care

Patients are worried about their doctors relying on AI for their care, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in February. About 60% of U.S. adults say they would feel uncomfortable if their own health care professional relied on artificial intelligence to do things like diagnose disease and recommend treatments; about 40% say they would feel comfortable with this.

“We have not yet gone into using ChatGPT for clinical purposes and will be very cautious with these types of applications due to concerns about inaccuracies,” Dr. Choi said.

Practice leaders reported in the MGMA poll that the most common uses of AI were nonclinical, such as:

• Patient communications, including call center answering service to help triage calls, to sort/distribute incoming fax messages, and outreach such as appointment reminders and marketing materials.
• Capturing clinical documentation, often with natural language processing or speech recognition platforms to help virtually scribe.
• Improving billing operations and predictive analytics.

Some doctors told The New York Times that ChatGPT helped them communicate with patients in a more compassionate way.

They used chatbots “to find words to break bad news and express concerns about a patient’s suffering, or to just more clearly explain medical recommendations,” the story noted.
 

Is regulation needed?

Some legal scholars and medical groups say that AI should be regulated to protect patients and doctors from risks, including medical errors, that could harm patients.

“It’s very important to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and privacy of language learning models (LLMs) before integrating them into the medical system. The same should be true of any new medical tool,” said Mason Marks, MD, JD, a health law professor at the Florida State University College of Law in Tallahassee.

In mid-June, the American Medical Association approved two resolutions calling for greater government oversight of AI. The AMA will develop proposed state and federal regulations and work with the federal government and other organizations to protect patients from false or misleading AI-generated medical advice.

Dr. Marks pointed to existing federal rules that apply to AI. “The Federal Trade Commission already has regulation that can potentially be used to combat unfair or deceptive trade practices associated with chatbots,” he said.

In addition, “the U.S. Food and Drug Administration can also regulate these tools, but it needs to update how it approaches risk when it comes to AI. The FDA has an outdated view of risk as physical harm, for instance, from traditional medical devices. That view of risk needs to be updated and expanded to encompass the unique harms of AI,” Dr. Marks said.

There should also be more transparency about how LLM software is used in medicine, he said. “That could be a norm implemented by the LLM developers and it could also be enforced by federal agencies. For instance, the FDA could require developers to be more transparent regarding training data and methods, and the FTC could require greater transparency regarding how consumer data might be used and opportunities to opt out of certain uses,” said Dr. Marks.
 

What should doctors do?

Dr. Marks advised doctors to be cautious when using ChatGPT and other LLMs, especially for medical advice. “The same would apply to any new medical tool, but we know that the current generation of LLMs [is] particularly prone to making things up, which could lead to medical errors if relied on in clinical settings,” he said.

There is also potential for breaches of patient confidentiality if doctors input clinical information. ChatGPT and OpenAI-enabled tools may not be compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which set national standards to protect individuals’ medical records and individually identifiable health information.

“The best approach is to use chatbots cautiously and with skepticism. Don’t input patient information, confirm the accuracy of information produced, and don’t use them as replacements for professional judgment,” Dr. Marks recommended.

Ms. Plested suggested that doctors who want to experiment with AI start with a low-risk tool such as appointment reminders that could save staff time and money. “I never recommend they start with something as high-stakes as coding/billing,” she said.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

After her emergency medicine group was acquired by a staffing firm backed by a large private equity (PE) firm, Michelle Wiener, MD, said the workflow changes came swiftly.

“Our staffing has been greatly reduced,” the Detroit physician said. “At this point, we have no say in anything. We have no say in the scheduling. We aren’t allowed to see what is billed under our name. The morale has really gone down.”

Dr. Wiener, who practices at Ascension St. John Hospital, said she and fellow physicians have repeatedly brought their concerns to TeamHealth, which in 2015 took over St. John Emergency Services PC. TeamHealth is owned by PE giant Blackstone.

“It’s very frustrating,” Dr. Wiener said. “We’re taking it from all sides.”

Blackstone and Ascension St. John did not respond to this news organization’s request for comment.

TeamHealth would not respond directly to questions about the Ascension St. John Hospital physicians or their concerns.

Spokesman Josh Hopson provided only a general statement: “TeamHealth is committed to making sure that clinicians have the resources and support needed to provide first-class care to patients, particularly with regard to staffing and compensation. TeamHealth has and will always put patient care first, and that is not impacted by its ownership model.”

Acquisitions of medical practices and hospitals by PE firms are rapidly growing, with more than 1,400 PE deals in health care in 2021 totaling upwards of $208 billion, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based firm that tracks mergers and acquisitions.

Some physicians praise the partnerships as an opportunity to improve technology and efficiency, whereas others decry them as raising patient costs and lowering the quality of care. A recent UC Berkeley study found that PE ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties, most notably oncology and gastroenterology.
 

What should you expect after PE acquisition?

Since his practice partnered with a PE firm in 2020, Milwaukee-based otolaryngologist Madan Kandula, MD, said he has found the changes positive. The practice has grown and improved operations in finance, accounting, compliance, and information technology, said Dr. Kandula, founder and CEO of Advent, an ENT practice with 15 clinics in four Midwestern states.

Dr. Kandula said his group already had a sound business practice, and that the goal of partnering with a PE firm wasn’t to change day-to-day operations but to propel the organization forward.

“From patient load to visit time to how we staff our clinics, there has been no change,” he said. “My private equity firm does not, [and] cannot, impose their will on our clinical decisions.”

Experts say the impact of PE acquisitions on individual physicians often depends on where a doctor ranks in the organization, what stage they are in their career, and how much control they had over the deal.

“It’s the older physicians who are usually selling the practice and getting the big payout,” said Anjali Dooley, a St. Louis–based health law attorney who counsels physicians about PE deals. “The younger doctors are usually not part of the deal, as they may still be employees. They don’t have any negotiating power. Hopefully, there is some transparency, but sometimes there is not, and they are blindsided by the deal.”

When it comes to workload, most PE-owned groups are put on a production-based model, such as a wRVU-based model, said Roger Strode, a Chicago-based health law attorney who focuses on health care mergers and acquisitions. Most already operate under such a model, but there might be some changes after a buyout.

Staffing may also change, added Ms. Dooley. The PE firms may want to add partners or companies already in their portfolios to create efficiencies, causing training or workflow changes.

In a hospital buyout, changes may depend on whether a department is a significant revenue generator for the hospital, Ms. Dooley noted.

PE firms frequently favor higher revenue–generating specialties, such as neurosurgery, cardiology, orthopedics, gastroenterology, and plastic surgery. They closely scrutinize departments said that make less money, such as the emergency department or primary care, Ms. Dooley said. Physicians or teams that don’t fit the firm’s cost-efficiency plans may be terminated or replaced.

On the other hand, Mr. Strode said physicians may see improved electronic health records and collections.

“Some of your overall overhead costs may be reduced, because they’re better at it,” Mr. Strode said. “When you’ve got more scale, the cost per patient, the cost per hour, the cost per procedure, goes down, and the cost that’s applied against your production will go down. As [practices grow], they have more bargaining power with payers and you can potentially get better rates. At least, that’s the promise.”

Analysts note that PE health care acquisitions show no signs of slowing and that it pays for physicians to know what to expect and how to cope if their practice or hospital is acquired. Whether physicians have some control over a buyout or are blindsided by the transition, it’s critical to know what to consider, how workloads might change, and your options for settling in or settling up.

The PE industry has about $2 trillion lined up for potential investments in 2023, said Ms. Dooley.

“PE firms are looking at health care to expend some of this dry powder,” Ms. Dooley continued. “If done correctly, PE firms that are aware of health care regulations, compliance, and patient care issues can ... remove redundant services and improve ... efficiencies, but the bad is when that doesn’t happen, and the quality of care goes down or there are patient safety risks.”
 

How to prepare for and cope with PE partnerships

If your practice is considering a PE partnership, it’s important to explore the terms and conditions and carefully weigh the pros and cons, said Gary Herschman, a Newark, N.J.–based attorney who advises PE-owned physician groups.

“My recommendation is that physicians at a minimum conduct due diligence on all potential strategic options for their groups, and then make an informed decision regarding whether a partnership transaction is right for their group, as it’s not right for every group,” he said.

When Texas cardiologist Rick Snyder, MD, was considering PE partnerships, he spoke with physicians who made similar deals to determine whether they were satisfied years later, he said. In April, Snyder’s practice, HeartPlace, the largest physician-owned cardiology practice in Texas, was acquired by US Heart & Vascular, a practice management platform backed by PE firm Ares Management.

“I called every group that I knew that had done private equity for any meaningful amount of time,” Dr. Snyder said. “For the first year or two, everybody is in the honeymoon period. If the model is going to succeed or break down, it’s not going to be in the first year or two. So I wanted to talk to groups that had done this for a longer amount of time and find out what their pitfalls were. What would they have done differently? Has it been a productive relationship? Did they grow?”

Dr. Snyder, president of the Texas Medical Association, said his practice met with seven or eight firms before choosing one that best met their needs. His group wanted a platform that preserved their clinical autonomy, governance, and culture, he said. They also wanted to ensure they were not entering into a “buy and flip” scenario, but rather a “buy and build” plan.

“Thus, financial capital was not sufficient, they also had to have intellectual capital and relationship capital on their bench,” he said. “When we found the partner that embraced all of these factors as well as a history of buying and long-term building, we pulled the trigger and partnered with Ares and US Heart & Vascular Management. The partner we chose did not offer us the most money. We put a premium on these other criteria.”

“I always tell docs, know the culture of your group and your vision,” he said. “Before you go down that route, ask yourself what you want to accomplish and if it makes sense having a private equity partner to accomplish that vision with.”

For younger physicians or those with little control over buyouts, experts recommend they review their contracts and consider consulting with an attorney to better understand how the deal may affect their earnings and career prospects.

Those who have a much longer career runway need to weigh whether they want to work for a PE-linked practice, Mr. Strode said. For some, it’s time to check when their noncompete agreements end and find a position elsewhere.

Also, physicians should know their rights and the laws in their states regarding the corporate practice of medicine. Statutes vary by state, and knowing the provisions in your state helps doctors recognize their legal rights, learn possible exceptions to the requirements, and know the penalties for violations.

In Michigan, a group of physicians and other health professionals at Ascension St. John has voted to unionize. Doctors hope that the union, which includes advanced practice clinicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants, will help improve patient care and protect working conditions for staff, Dr. Wiener said.

She advises physicians who are unhappy after acquisitions to speak up and stick together.

“That’s the biggest thing I think physicians should start doing,” she said. “Support each other and stand up. You are stronger together.”
 

Why is PE so attracted to health care?

PE firms typically buy practices or hospitals, work to make the entities more profitable, and then sell them, with the goal of doubling or tripling their investment over a short period. In general, PE firms aim for annual returns exceeding 20% after 3-7 years.

These firms know that health care is relatively recession-proof, that providers have third-party payers, and that the industry is fragmented and requires more efficiency, Ms. Dooley said.

When PE practice acquisitions started gaining momentum about 12 years ago, traditional hospital-based specialties such as anesthesiology and radiology were prime targets, said Mr. Strode.

At the same time, increasing challenges in private practice, such as declining compensation from payers, pressure to participate in value-based care programs, and rising regional competitors have fueled more physician groups to partner with PE firms, Mr. Herschman noted.

Physicians who partner with PE firms often benefit by having new access to capital to grow their practices, cost savings through group purchasing, and the ability to compete with larger health groups, Mr. Herschman said.

Questions remain, however, about how PE involvement affects health care use and spending. An April 2023 JAMA Viewpoint article called out the lack of oversight and regulation in the health care/PE space, suggesting that a stronger framework for regulation and transparency is needed.

A 2022 study in JAMA Health Forum that examined changes in prices and utilization associated with the PE acquisitions of 578 dermatology, gastroenterology, and ophthalmology physician practices from 2016 to 2020 found that prices increased by an average of 11%, and volume rose by 16%, after acquisition.

“We found that acquisitions were associated with increases in health care spending and utilization, as well as some other patterns of care like potential upcoding,” said Jane M. Zhu, MD, an author of the study and assistant professor at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland.

Another recent study that Dr. Zhu coauthored, published in Health Affairs, found that physician practices acquired by PE firms experience greater staff turnover and rely more heavily on advanced practice professionals than doctors.

“To the extent that that turnover indicates physicians are dissatisfied after private equity comes in, that’s really important to investigate further,” Dr. Zhu said.

PE firms owned 4% of U.S. hospitals in 2021 and 11% of nursing homes, according to a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) report. The report does not include 2021 data on medical practices but notes that from 2013 to 2016, PE firms acquired at least 2% of physician practices. Estimates of PE deals are probably lower than actual numbers because of the lack of comprehensive information sources, according to the MedPAC report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

PARIS – “We need to develop new therapies to treat addiction because of the related cost to society, which is extremely high,” said Bruno Roméo, MD, psychiatrist and addiction specialist at Paul Brousse Hospital in Villejuif, France, at the Paris-based Neuroscience, Psychiatry and Neurology Conference. Dr. Roméo spoke about the current place of psychedelics in the treatment of addiction.

“Smoking and alcohol consumption are the two main preventable causes of death in France,” he said. “Current management strategies for these addictions rarely involve pharmacological therapies, which are not very effective, in any case. We have massive relapse rates, signaling the need to develop other treatments, like psychedelic drugs.”

But what data are available on the efficacy of psychedelics in treating addiction?

Alcohol use disorder

There are few data concerning the role of psychedelics in the treatment of alcohol use disorder, but one controlled, randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of psilocybin. That trial was published in JAMA Psychiatry in 2022.

That study included 95 patients with alcohol use disorder; 49 were treated with psilocybin, and 46 were treated with diphenhydramine.

An initial medication session of psilocybin was given in week 4, then another in week 8 at a higher dose. The number of drinking days, the number of heavy drinking days, and the number of drinks consumed between weeks 32 and 36 were assessed.

The investigators showed that, after two sessions with psilocybin, there was a significant reduction in the number of heavy drinking days. In the control group, between weeks 5 and 36, 20% of days involved heavy drinking, whereas in the psilocybin group, 10% of days involved heavy drinking.

There was also a significant and rapid reduction in the number of drinking days, and this was maintained over time. Between weeks 5 and 36, just over 40% of days were reported as drinking days in the control group versus slightly more than 30% in the psilocybin group.

Similarly, the number of glasses per day was drastically reduced after taking psilocybin, and the effect occurred extremely quickly. Consumption went from six drinks to less than one drink between weeks 5 and 8. Overall, between weeks 5 and 36, the number of drinks consumed per day was more than two in the placebo group and more than one in the psilocybin group.

“Psilocybin was seen as having potential efficacy in treating alcohol use disorder. But we must tread carefully with these results; the profile of the patients enrolled in this study is different to that of the patients we regularly see in our addiction clinics. The patients enrolled in the study reported less than 60% of days as heavy drinking days,” said Dr. Romeo.
 

Candidates for psilocybin

According to a retrospective survey of 160 respondents that was conducted online at Paul Brousse Hospital, patients with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder who have the most mystical psychedelic experiences seem to respond best to psilocybin and to reduce their alcohol use. It also appears that patients whose alcohol use decreased the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study. (Psychological flexibility is the ability to adapt to change and to cope with positive and negative experiences in real time without being fazed or trying to flee from the situation.) “It’s as if they had a broader capacity for change, and psychedelics helped them more,” said Dr. Roméo.

Smoking cessation

“There are even fewer studies for smoking,” said Dr. Roméo. In a pilot study with 15 patients, the researchers gave two or three doses of psilocybin at 20-30 mg in combination with cognitive-behavioral therapy one session per week for 10 weeks. Thereafter, patients were assessed three times: after 6 months, 12 months, and 30 months.

The results showed a significant reduction in smoking. Patients went from smoking more than 15 cigarettes per day to smoking one to two cigarettes per day before going back up to six cigarettes daily.

Regarding abstinence rates, 12 of 15 patients had stopped smoking after 6 months, 8 of 15 after 1 year, and 7 of 15 after 30 months. “This study produced some interesting results, although caution must obviously be taken due to the very low number of patients enrolled,” said Dr. Roméo.

As is the case for alcohol, a retrospective survey conducted via questionnaire at Paul Brousse Hospital showed that the patients who smoked the most and who had the most mystical psychedelic experiences seemed to respond best to psilocybin and therefore to reduce their tobacco use. It also seemed to be the case that patients who reduced tobacco use the most had lower psychological flexibility on enrollment in the study.
 

Constraints on psychedelics

“Psychedelics are somewhat effective in treating addiction, but there are various limitations to their use,” said Dr. Roméo.

One of those limitations is societal. Laurence Bézo, MD, of the addiction services clinic at Paul Brousse Hospital, asked doctors to respond to a questionnaire to determine what they thought about psychedelics. To date, 407 have responded, including 280 general practitioners, 50 addiction specialists, and 50 specialist physicians. Overall, 50% think that psychedelics have no therapeutic potential. Three of five doctors also said that psychedelics are dangerous. Just over half thought that their use is associated with a severe risk of aggression aimed at oneself and toward others. Likewise, half think that the risk of dependency is very high and that there is a risk of co-occurring psychiatric disorders. “From the pool of physicians queried, the consensus is that psychedelics are pretty dangerous. People also seem to frown upon prescribing psychedelics in France,” said Dr. Roméo.

Participants went as far as to classify psychedelics as some of the most dangerous drugs out there.

Using a 7-point scale, they classified psychedelics below heroin and cocaine in terms of dangerousness. They are deemed much more harmful than alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis.

“A survey of the public carried out several years ago by leading French market research group IFOP had the exact same findings. Nevertheless, a number of studies have set out to determine how dangerous psychedelics are, and their findings point to this class of drugs as being among the least harmful for the individual patient and those around them. On the contrary, alcohol, heroin, crack cocaine (or even cocaine),methamphetamine, and tobacco were shown to be the most harmful. Additionally, psychedelics have a very low risk of dependency and the lowest risk of lethality. There is complete dissonance between what recent studies show us and what society, and some doctors, think,” said Dr. Roméo.

Besides these assumptions, another constraint to the use of psychedelics relates to methods adopted in related clinical studies. “Due to the effect psychedelics have, in the trials conducted, 9 participants and 9 doctors out of 10 are aware of what they have taken or given, respectively. This is a very important limitation. Nowadays, researchers don’t know how to conduct accurate double-blind studies,” said Dr. Roméo.

In sum, for psychiatrists, psychedelics are promising in addiction therapy, but health care professionals, public authorities, and society as a whole must be better informed about their use, and received ideas must be dispelled.

“The findings need to be replicated, but overall, psychedelics are really quite promising in treating both alcohol and tobacco use disorder. They are generally well tolerated with few serious side effects. There is no deterioration in patients with psychiatric conditions while they are taking psychedelics. And if persistent symptoms of psychosis do occur, which is extremely rare, it’s probably because there are preexisting underlying issues at play. We also don’t see increased blood pressure or any other serious physical anomalies. In a supervised setting, as is the case with studies involving psychotherapeutic support, we can no longer say, in this day and age, that psychedelics are harmful,” said Dr. Roméo.

Dr. Roméo reported no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article.

This article was translated from the Medscape French Edition and a version appeared on Medscape.com.

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

Children exposed to physical assault were twice as likely to be diagnosed with mental illness in the years following the assault than those who weren’t exposed, a new population-based study shows.

The greatest risk was found in the first year following the assault, increasing to three times the risk of being diagnosed with mental illness, compared with children not assaulted. Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses.

“From a clinical and policy perspective, our study highlights that there is a critical opportunity for health care clinicians to support children in the first year following physical assault,” Natasha Saunders, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues wrote. “There is a need to develop and implement targeted mental illness prevention, screening, and treatment programs for assaulted children.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

While it has been well established that children exposed to assault have an increased risk for subsequent mental illness, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators noted that using an age-matched, population-based cohort study would enable them to obtain detailed information on the patterns and timing of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses.

To that end, the researchers used several medical databases in Ontario to find 5,487 children (infants to age 13 years) who required an ED visit or hospitalization for a physical assault in Ontario between 2006 and 2014.

These children were matched on a 1:4 basis with 21,948 children not exposed to physical assault. The children were followed until their 18th birthday or until the study ended in March 2019.

The researchers found that more than a third of the children (39%) who were exposed to assault received a mental health diagnosis, according to health records, compared with 23% of unexposed children.

Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses among children exposed to assault (16.2% vs. 10.6%, respectively); followed by select childhood behavior disorders, such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, or conduct disorder (9.9% vs. 5.2%); and substance use disorders (2.4% vs. 0.4%).
 

Triple risk of mental illness in first year

The researchers found that the children exposed to assault were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness over a median follow-up of 7 years, compared with those not exposed to assault (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.85,2.08).

In the year following the assault, children exposed to assault bore three times the risk of being diagnosed with a mental illness, compared with unexposed children (aHR, 3.08; 95% CI, 2.68,3.54).

In addition, the children who had been assaulted were more likely to be diagnosed in an acute care setting than those who were not assaulted (14% vs. 2.8%).

The children who had been assaulted were an average age of 7 years and were more often boys (55% vs. 45%). Children who were assaulted were also more likely to have mothers with mental illness (35% vs. 19%).

The investigators noted that the study likely underestimated the number of children exposed to assault, as many do not end up in the ED.

In addition to highlighting the need for medical personnel to support children in the first year following assault, the investigators wrote that “our results also advocate for accessible mental health care outside of the acute setting and for care that addresses the social and health needs of mothers, who themselves have high social and health risks.”

This study received funding from the National Foundation to End Child Abuse and Neglect and the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Saunders reported receiving personal fees from The BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood outside the submitted work.

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

Children exposed to physical assault were twice as likely to be diagnosed with mental illness in the years following the assault than those who weren’t exposed, a new population-based study shows.

The greatest risk was found in the first year following the assault, increasing to three times the risk of being diagnosed with mental illness, compared with children not assaulted. Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses.

“From a clinical and policy perspective, our study highlights that there is a critical opportunity for health care clinicians to support children in the first year following physical assault,” Natasha Saunders, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues wrote. “There is a need to develop and implement targeted mental illness prevention, screening, and treatment programs for assaulted children.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

While it has been well established that children exposed to assault have an increased risk for subsequent mental illness, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators noted that using an age-matched, population-based cohort study would enable them to obtain detailed information on the patterns and timing of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses.

To that end, the researchers used several medical databases in Ontario to find 5,487 children (infants to age 13 years) who required an ED visit or hospitalization for a physical assault in Ontario between 2006 and 2014.

These children were matched on a 1:4 basis with 21,948 children not exposed to physical assault. The children were followed until their 18th birthday or until the study ended in March 2019.

The researchers found that more than a third of the children (39%) who were exposed to assault received a mental health diagnosis, according to health records, compared with 23% of unexposed children.

Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses among children exposed to assault (16.2% vs. 10.6%, respectively); followed by select childhood behavior disorders, such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, or conduct disorder (9.9% vs. 5.2%); and substance use disorders (2.4% vs. 0.4%).
 

Triple risk of mental illness in first year

The researchers found that the children exposed to assault were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness over a median follow-up of 7 years, compared with those not exposed to assault (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.85,2.08).

In the year following the assault, children exposed to assault bore three times the risk of being diagnosed with a mental illness, compared with unexposed children (aHR, 3.08; 95% CI, 2.68,3.54).

In addition, the children who had been assaulted were more likely to be diagnosed in an acute care setting than those who were not assaulted (14% vs. 2.8%).

The children who had been assaulted were an average age of 7 years and were more often boys (55% vs. 45%). Children who were assaulted were also more likely to have mothers with mental illness (35% vs. 19%).

The investigators noted that the study likely underestimated the number of children exposed to assault, as many do not end up in the ED.

In addition to highlighting the need for medical personnel to support children in the first year following assault, the investigators wrote that “our results also advocate for accessible mental health care outside of the acute setting and for care that addresses the social and health needs of mothers, who themselves have high social and health risks.”

This study received funding from the National Foundation to End Child Abuse and Neglect and the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Saunders reported receiving personal fees from The BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood outside the submitted work.

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

Children exposed to physical assault were twice as likely to be diagnosed with mental illness in the years following the assault than those who weren’t exposed, a new population-based study shows.

The greatest risk was found in the first year following the assault, increasing to three times the risk of being diagnosed with mental illness, compared with children not assaulted. Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses.

“From a clinical and policy perspective, our study highlights that there is a critical opportunity for health care clinicians to support children in the first year following physical assault,” Natasha Saunders, MD, MSc, of the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, and colleagues wrote. “There is a need to develop and implement targeted mental illness prevention, screening, and treatment programs for assaulted children.”

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.

While it has been well established that children exposed to assault have an increased risk for subsequent mental illness, Dr. Saunders and coinvestigators noted that using an age-matched, population-based cohort study would enable them to obtain detailed information on the patterns and timing of subsequent psychiatric diagnoses.

To that end, the researchers used several medical databases in Ontario to find 5,487 children (infants to age 13 years) who required an ED visit or hospitalization for a physical assault in Ontario between 2006 and 2014.

These children were matched on a 1:4 basis with 21,948 children not exposed to physical assault. The children were followed until their 18th birthday or until the study ended in March 2019.

The researchers found that more than a third of the children (39%) who were exposed to assault received a mental health diagnosis, according to health records, compared with 23% of unexposed children.

Mood and anxiety disorders were the most common diagnoses among children exposed to assault (16.2% vs. 10.6%, respectively); followed by select childhood behavior disorders, such as ADHD, oppositional defiant disorder, or conduct disorder (9.9% vs. 5.2%); and substance use disorders (2.4% vs. 0.4%).
 

Triple risk of mental illness in first year

The researchers found that the children exposed to assault were nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness over a median follow-up of 7 years, compared with those not exposed to assault (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.85,2.08).

In the year following the assault, children exposed to assault bore three times the risk of being diagnosed with a mental illness, compared with unexposed children (aHR, 3.08; 95% CI, 2.68,3.54).

In addition, the children who had been assaulted were more likely to be diagnosed in an acute care setting than those who were not assaulted (14% vs. 2.8%).

The children who had been assaulted were an average age of 7 years and were more often boys (55% vs. 45%). Children who were assaulted were also more likely to have mothers with mental illness (35% vs. 19%).

The investigators noted that the study likely underestimated the number of children exposed to assault, as many do not end up in the ED.

In addition to highlighting the need for medical personnel to support children in the first year following assault, the investigators wrote that “our results also advocate for accessible mental health care outside of the acute setting and for care that addresses the social and health needs of mothers, who themselves have high social and health risks.”

This study received funding from the National Foundation to End Child Abuse and Neglect and the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care. Dr. Saunders reported receiving personal fees from The BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood outside the submitted work.

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

Treatment with medication often used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was associated with lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, or death in adults with borderline personality disorder, based on data from more than 17,000 individuals.

Although most patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) receive psychopharmacological treatment, clinical guidance and outcomes data for specific medication use in these patients are lacking, wrote Johannes Lieslehto, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Finland, Niuvankuja, and colleagues.

Dr. Lieslehto

In a study published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , the researchers – using national databases in Sweden – identified 17,532 adults with BPD who were treated with medications between 2006 and 2018.

Medications included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants, as well as medications often used for ADHD: clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate. The mean age of the study population was 29.8 years and 2,649 were men.

The primary outcomes were psychiatric hospitalization (which served as an indication of treatment failure), all-cause hospitalization, or death.

Overall, treatment with benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants was associated with increased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 1.38, 1.19, and 1.18, respectively, and with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR 1.37, HR 1.21, HR 1.17, respectively).

By contrast, treatment with ADHD medication was associated with decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalization (HR = 0.88), as well as a decreased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR = 0.86).

Specifically, clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate were associated with decreased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 0.54, 0.79, 0.84, and 0.90, respectively.

Treatment with mood stabilizers had no significant impact on outcomes.

BPD patients treated with ADHD medications also may exhibit ADHD symptoms, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “Although BPD and ADHD partially overlap in symptoms such as impulsivity and emotion dysregulation, previous efforts to investigate the efficacy of ADHD medication treatment in BPD are scarce,” and randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine whether these medications should be given to BPD patients without comorbid ADHD symptoms, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinical parameters on symptom severity, quality of life, and level of function, and premature prescribing of medication (protopathic bias) may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up, which increases the generalizability to real-world patients, and suggest that many pharmacological treatments for BPD may not improve outcomes, the researchers said. However, “even in the presence of possible protopathic bias, treatment with lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, methylphenidate, and clozapine was associated with improved outcomes, encouraging further research on these treatments,” they said.

The study was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Academy of Finland. Dr. Lieslehto had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Treatment with medication often used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was associated with lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, or death in adults with borderline personality disorder, based on data from more than 17,000 individuals.

Although most patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) receive psychopharmacological treatment, clinical guidance and outcomes data for specific medication use in these patients are lacking, wrote Johannes Lieslehto, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Finland, Niuvankuja, and colleagues.

Dr. Lieslehto

In a study published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , the researchers – using national databases in Sweden – identified 17,532 adults with BPD who were treated with medications between 2006 and 2018.

Medications included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants, as well as medications often used for ADHD: clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate. The mean age of the study population was 29.8 years and 2,649 were men.

The primary outcomes were psychiatric hospitalization (which served as an indication of treatment failure), all-cause hospitalization, or death.

Overall, treatment with benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants was associated with increased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 1.38, 1.19, and 1.18, respectively, and with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR 1.37, HR 1.21, HR 1.17, respectively).

By contrast, treatment with ADHD medication was associated with decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalization (HR = 0.88), as well as a decreased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR = 0.86).

Specifically, clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate were associated with decreased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 0.54, 0.79, 0.84, and 0.90, respectively.

Treatment with mood stabilizers had no significant impact on outcomes.

BPD patients treated with ADHD medications also may exhibit ADHD symptoms, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “Although BPD and ADHD partially overlap in symptoms such as impulsivity and emotion dysregulation, previous efforts to investigate the efficacy of ADHD medication treatment in BPD are scarce,” and randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine whether these medications should be given to BPD patients without comorbid ADHD symptoms, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinical parameters on symptom severity, quality of life, and level of function, and premature prescribing of medication (protopathic bias) may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up, which increases the generalizability to real-world patients, and suggest that many pharmacological treatments for BPD may not improve outcomes, the researchers said. However, “even in the presence of possible protopathic bias, treatment with lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, methylphenidate, and clozapine was associated with improved outcomes, encouraging further research on these treatments,” they said.

The study was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Academy of Finland. Dr. Lieslehto had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Treatment with medication often used for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was associated with lower risk of psychiatric hospitalization, all-cause hospitalization, or death in adults with borderline personality disorder, based on data from more than 17,000 individuals.

Although most patients with borderline personality disorder (BPD) receive psychopharmacological treatment, clinical guidance and outcomes data for specific medication use in these patients are lacking, wrote Johannes Lieslehto, MD, PhD, of the University of Eastern Finland, Niuvankuja, and colleagues.

Dr. Lieslehto

In a study published in Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica , the researchers – using national databases in Sweden – identified 17,532 adults with BPD who were treated with medications between 2006 and 2018.

Medications included benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants, as well as medications often used for ADHD: clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate. The mean age of the study population was 29.8 years and 2,649 were men.

The primary outcomes were psychiatric hospitalization (which served as an indication of treatment failure), all-cause hospitalization, or death.

Overall, treatment with benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, and antidepressants was associated with increased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 1.38, 1.19, and 1.18, respectively, and with increased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR 1.37, HR 1.21, HR 1.17, respectively).

By contrast, treatment with ADHD medication was associated with decreased risk of psychiatric hospitalization (HR = 0.88), as well as a decreased risk of all-cause hospitalization or death (HR = 0.86).

Specifically, clozapine, lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, and methylphenidate were associated with decreased risk of psychiatric rehospitalization, with hazard ratios of 0.54, 0.79, 0.84, and 0.90, respectively.

Treatment with mood stabilizers had no significant impact on outcomes.

BPD patients treated with ADHD medications also may exhibit ADHD symptoms, the researchers wrote in their discussion. However, “Although BPD and ADHD partially overlap in symptoms such as impulsivity and emotion dysregulation, previous efforts to investigate the efficacy of ADHD medication treatment in BPD are scarce,” and randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine whether these medications should be given to BPD patients without comorbid ADHD symptoms, they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the lack of clinical parameters on symptom severity, quality of life, and level of function, and premature prescribing of medication (protopathic bias) may have affected the results, the researchers noted.

The results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up, which increases the generalizability to real-world patients, and suggest that many pharmacological treatments for BPD may not improve outcomes, the researchers said. However, “even in the presence of possible protopathic bias, treatment with lisdexamphetamine, bupropion, methylphenidate, and clozapine was associated with improved outcomes, encouraging further research on these treatments,” they said.

The study was supported by the Finnish Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Academy of Finland. Dr. Lieslehto had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A large brain imaging study of adults with six different psychiatric illnesses shows that heterogeneity in regional gray matter volume deviations is a general feature of psychiatric illness, but that these regionally heterogeneous areas are often embedded within common functional circuits and networks.

The findings suggest that “targeting brain circuits, rather than specific brain regions, may be a more effective way of developing new treatments,” study investigator Ashlea Segal said in an email.

The findings also suggest that it’s “unlikely that a single cause or mechanism of a given disorder exists, and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to treatment is likely only appropriate for a small subset of individuals. In fact, one size doesn’t fit all. It probably doesn’t even fit most,” said Ms. Segal, a PhD candidate with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health’s Neural Systems and Behaviour Lab at Monash University in Melbourne.

“Focusing on brain alterations at an individual level allows us to develop more personally tailored treatments,” Ms. Segal added.

Regional heterogeneity, the authors write, “thus offers a plausible explanation for the well-described clinical heterogeneity observed in psychiatric disorders, while circuit- and network-level aggregation of deviations is a putative neural substrate for phenotypic similarities between patients assigned the same diagnosis.”

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience
 

Beyond group averages

For decades, researchers have mapped brain areas showing reduced gray matter volume (GMV) in people diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses, but these maps have only been generated at the level of group averages, Ms. Segal explained.

“This means that we understand how the brains of people with, say, schizophrenia, differ from those without schizophrenia on average, but we can’t really say much about individual people,” Ms. Segal said.

For their study, the researchers used new statistical techniques developed by Andre Marquand, PhD, who co-led the project, to characterize the heterogeneity of GMV differences in 1,294 individuals diagnosed with one of six psychiatric conditions and 1,465 matched controls. Dr. Marquand is affiliated with the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

These techniques “allow us to benchmark the size of over 1,000 different brain regions in any given person relative to what we should expect to see in the general population. In this way, we can identify, for any person, brain regions showing unusually small or large volumes, given that person’s age and sex,” Ms. Segal told this news organization.

The clinical sample included 202 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 153 with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 228 with bipolar disorder, 161 with major depressive disorder, 167 with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 383 individuals with schizophrenia.

Confirming earlier findings, those with psychiatric illness showed more GMV deviations than healthy controls, the researchers found.

However, at the individual level, deviations from population expectations for regional gray matter volumes were “highly heterogeneous,” affecting the same area in less than 7% of people with the same diagnosis, they note. “This result means that it is difficult to pinpoint treatment targets or causal mechanisms by focusing on group averages alone,” Alex Fornito, PhD, of Monash University, who led the research team, said in a statement.

“It may also explain why people with the same diagnosis show wide variability in their symptom profiles and treatment outcomes,” Dr. Fornito added.

Yet, despite considerable heterogeneity at the regional level across different diagnoses, these deviations were embedded within common functional circuits and networks in up to 56% of cases. 

The salience-ventral attention network, for example, which plays a central role in cognitive control, interoceptive awareness, and switching between internally and externally focused attention, was implicated across diagnoses, with other neural networks selectively involved in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and ADHD.

The researchers say the approach they developed opens new opportunities for mapping brain changes in mental illness.

“The framework we have developed allows us to understand the diversity of brain changes in people with mental illness at different levels, from individual regions through to more widespread brain circuits and networks, offering a deeper insight into how the brain is affected in individual people,” Dr. Fornito said in a statement.

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Segal, Dr. Fornito, and Dr. Marquand report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large brain imaging study of adults with six different psychiatric illnesses shows that heterogeneity in regional gray matter volume deviations is a general feature of psychiatric illness, but that these regionally heterogeneous areas are often embedded within common functional circuits and networks.

The findings suggest that “targeting brain circuits, rather than specific brain regions, may be a more effective way of developing new treatments,” study investigator Ashlea Segal said in an email.

The findings also suggest that it’s “unlikely that a single cause or mechanism of a given disorder exists, and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to treatment is likely only appropriate for a small subset of individuals. In fact, one size doesn’t fit all. It probably doesn’t even fit most,” said Ms. Segal, a PhD candidate with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health’s Neural Systems and Behaviour Lab at Monash University in Melbourne.

“Focusing on brain alterations at an individual level allows us to develop more personally tailored treatments,” Ms. Segal added.

Regional heterogeneity, the authors write, “thus offers a plausible explanation for the well-described clinical heterogeneity observed in psychiatric disorders, while circuit- and network-level aggregation of deviations is a putative neural substrate for phenotypic similarities between patients assigned the same diagnosis.”

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience
 

Beyond group averages

For decades, researchers have mapped brain areas showing reduced gray matter volume (GMV) in people diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses, but these maps have only been generated at the level of group averages, Ms. Segal explained.

“This means that we understand how the brains of people with, say, schizophrenia, differ from those without schizophrenia on average, but we can’t really say much about individual people,” Ms. Segal said.

For their study, the researchers used new statistical techniques developed by Andre Marquand, PhD, who co-led the project, to characterize the heterogeneity of GMV differences in 1,294 individuals diagnosed with one of six psychiatric conditions and 1,465 matched controls. Dr. Marquand is affiliated with the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

These techniques “allow us to benchmark the size of over 1,000 different brain regions in any given person relative to what we should expect to see in the general population. In this way, we can identify, for any person, brain regions showing unusually small or large volumes, given that person’s age and sex,” Ms. Segal told this news organization.

The clinical sample included 202 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 153 with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 228 with bipolar disorder, 161 with major depressive disorder, 167 with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 383 individuals with schizophrenia.

Confirming earlier findings, those with psychiatric illness showed more GMV deviations than healthy controls, the researchers found.

However, at the individual level, deviations from population expectations for regional gray matter volumes were “highly heterogeneous,” affecting the same area in less than 7% of people with the same diagnosis, they note. “This result means that it is difficult to pinpoint treatment targets or causal mechanisms by focusing on group averages alone,” Alex Fornito, PhD, of Monash University, who led the research team, said in a statement.

“It may also explain why people with the same diagnosis show wide variability in their symptom profiles and treatment outcomes,” Dr. Fornito added.

Yet, despite considerable heterogeneity at the regional level across different diagnoses, these deviations were embedded within common functional circuits and networks in up to 56% of cases. 

The salience-ventral attention network, for example, which plays a central role in cognitive control, interoceptive awareness, and switching between internally and externally focused attention, was implicated across diagnoses, with other neural networks selectively involved in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and ADHD.

The researchers say the approach they developed opens new opportunities for mapping brain changes in mental illness.

“The framework we have developed allows us to understand the diversity of brain changes in people with mental illness at different levels, from individual regions through to more widespread brain circuits and networks, offering a deeper insight into how the brain is affected in individual people,” Dr. Fornito said in a statement.

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Segal, Dr. Fornito, and Dr. Marquand report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A large brain imaging study of adults with six different psychiatric illnesses shows that heterogeneity in regional gray matter volume deviations is a general feature of psychiatric illness, but that these regionally heterogeneous areas are often embedded within common functional circuits and networks.

The findings suggest that “targeting brain circuits, rather than specific brain regions, may be a more effective way of developing new treatments,” study investigator Ashlea Segal said in an email.

The findings also suggest that it’s “unlikely that a single cause or mechanism of a given disorder exists, and that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to treatment is likely only appropriate for a small subset of individuals. In fact, one size doesn’t fit all. It probably doesn’t even fit most,” said Ms. Segal, a PhD candidate with the Turner Institute for Brain and Mental Health’s Neural Systems and Behaviour Lab at Monash University in Melbourne.

“Focusing on brain alterations at an individual level allows us to develop more personally tailored treatments,” Ms. Segal added.

Regional heterogeneity, the authors write, “thus offers a plausible explanation for the well-described clinical heterogeneity observed in psychiatric disorders, while circuit- and network-level aggregation of deviations is a putative neural substrate for phenotypic similarities between patients assigned the same diagnosis.”

The study was published online in Nature Neuroscience
 

Beyond group averages

For decades, researchers have mapped brain areas showing reduced gray matter volume (GMV) in people diagnosed with a variety of mental illnesses, but these maps have only been generated at the level of group averages, Ms. Segal explained.

“This means that we understand how the brains of people with, say, schizophrenia, differ from those without schizophrenia on average, but we can’t really say much about individual people,” Ms. Segal said.

For their study, the researchers used new statistical techniques developed by Andre Marquand, PhD, who co-led the project, to characterize the heterogeneity of GMV differences in 1,294 individuals diagnosed with one of six psychiatric conditions and 1,465 matched controls. Dr. Marquand is affiliated with the Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behavior in Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

These techniques “allow us to benchmark the size of over 1,000 different brain regions in any given person relative to what we should expect to see in the general population. In this way, we can identify, for any person, brain regions showing unusually small or large volumes, given that person’s age and sex,” Ms. Segal told this news organization.

The clinical sample included 202 individuals with autism spectrum disorder, 153 with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 228 with bipolar disorder, 161 with major depressive disorder, 167 with obsessive-compulsive disorder, and 383 individuals with schizophrenia.

Confirming earlier findings, those with psychiatric illness showed more GMV deviations than healthy controls, the researchers found.

However, at the individual level, deviations from population expectations for regional gray matter volumes were “highly heterogeneous,” affecting the same area in less than 7% of people with the same diagnosis, they note. “This result means that it is difficult to pinpoint treatment targets or causal mechanisms by focusing on group averages alone,” Alex Fornito, PhD, of Monash University, who led the research team, said in a statement.

“It may also explain why people with the same diagnosis show wide variability in their symptom profiles and treatment outcomes,” Dr. Fornito added.

Yet, despite considerable heterogeneity at the regional level across different diagnoses, these deviations were embedded within common functional circuits and networks in up to 56% of cases. 

The salience-ventral attention network, for example, which plays a central role in cognitive control, interoceptive awareness, and switching between internally and externally focused attention, was implicated across diagnoses, with other neural networks selectively involved in depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and ADHD.

The researchers say the approach they developed opens new opportunities for mapping brain changes in mental illness.

“The framework we have developed allows us to understand the diversity of brain changes in people with mental illness at different levels, from individual regions through to more widespread brain circuits and networks, offering a deeper insight into how the brain is affected in individual people,” Dr. Fornito said in a statement.

The study had no commercial funding. Ms. Segal, Dr. Fornito, and Dr. Marquand report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Physicians tend to be compulsive multitaskers. We switch from one task to another all the time – even in front of patients. We think we are more efficient and productive, and that we are accomplishing more in less time. In fact, there is no credible evidence that this is true, and a mountain of evidence showing exactly the opposite.

According to this study and others, multitasking results in an average of 2 hours per day of lost productivity. It decreases the quality of work performed and increases cortisol levels, which impedes cognitive functioning, leading to a further decrease in productivity in a vicious cycle, making you increasingly ineffective and destroying your motivation and mood.

On the surface, the reasons for this are not intuitively obvious. After all, simple and routine tasks are easy to perform simultaneously; we can all walk and chew gum at the same time or eat a snack while watching TV. The problems arise when we try to multitask more complex tasks that require thought and decision-making.

It turns out that the pressures of our modern world have evolved faster than our brains. We are still hard-wired for monotasking. When we think we are completing two tasks simultaneously, we are actually performing individual actions in rapid succession. Each time you switch tasks, your brain must turn off the cognitive rules of the previous task and turn on new rules for the next one. When you switch back, the process repeats in reverse. Each of those mental gear shifts takes time and costs us productivity. According to one psychologist, even brief mental blocks created by shifting between tasks can cost as much as 40% of someone’s productive time. We are also far more likely to make mistakes while we are doing it.

Furthermore, you are stifling your creativity and innovation because you don’t focus on one task long enough to come up with original insights. Multitasking also slows down your general cognitive functions, in the same way that keeping many windows are open on your computer slows down the entire system. A study from my alma mater, the University of California, San Francisco, concluded that multitasking negativity affects memory in both younger and older adults (although the effects were greater in older adults) .

So, what to do? The fact remains that, all too often, there really are too many tasks and not enough hours in the day. How can you get through them without falling into the multitasking trap?

The first rule is to prioritize. In his book “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People,” Stephen Covey makes an important distinction between tasks that are important and those that are merely urgent. Tasks that are important and urgent tend to make time for themselves, because they must be taken care of immediately.

Jobs that are important but not urgent are the ones we tend to try to multitask. Because there is no immediate deadline, we think we can do two or more of them simultaneously, or we fall into the other major productivity trap: procrastination. Neither of those strategies tends to end well. Identify those important but not urgent tasks and force yourself to go through them one by one.

Urgent but unimportant tasks are the productivity thieves. They demand your attention but are not worthy of it. Most tasks in this category can be delegated. I have written about physicians’ workaholic and perfectionist tendencies that drive our conviction that no one else can do anything as well as we can. Does that unimportant task, even if urgent, really demand your time, skills, education, and medical license? Is there someone in your office, or possibly an outside contractor, who could do it just as well, and maybe faster?

In fact, that is the question you should ask every time a project triggers your urge to multitask: “Who could be doing this job – or at least a major part of it – instead of me?”

If your multitasking urges are deeply ingrained – particularly those that involve phones, laptops, and the cloud – you might consider employing electronic aids. SelfControl, for example, is a free, open-sourced app that lets you block your own access to distracting websites, your email servers, social media, or anything else on the Internet. You list the sites you wish to block and set a period of time to block them. Until the set time expires, you will be unable to access those sites, even if you restart your computer or delete the application.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

More than 3 decades ago, John E. Sarno, MD, published Healing Back Pain, a popular book that garnered something of a cult following. Looking at his own practice, Dr. Sarno, a rehabilitation medicine specialist in New York, saw that most of his patients with chronic pain did not have evidence of acute injury or degenerative disk disease. Their persistent pain appeared to be independent of any structural damage to the spine. Dr. Sarno attributed the pain to what he called tension myoneural syndrome (TMS), or the body’s reaction to suppressed stress and emotional turmoil. Resolving that psychological conflict, Dr. Sarno believed, would lead to an improvement in pain.
 

Dr. Sarno’s theory has met skepticism from the mainstream community, but glowing testimonies from patients who say they benefited from his strategies fill the Internet. Dr. Sarno wrote several books on his ideas before his death in 2017. But he published only one peer-reviewed study, a 2003 review in the Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation coauthored by Ira Rashbaum, MD.

This news organization spoke recently with Dr. Rashbaum, a physiatrist and chief of tension myoneural syndrome at NYU Langone Health, New York, about TMS and how he manages patients with chronic pain. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

What is your theory of back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: My null hypothesis is that back pain is not due to psychological issues, so as to not be a biased doctor, I try to accept the null hypothesis or reject the null hypothesis. In most cases chronic back pain is not due to structural etiology. My sense is it’s a mind-body issue – the avoidance of feeling strong emotions like anger, rage, sadness, fear, shame, and guilt. Patients can embrace psychoeducational programs and if they don’t get better, we work with a psychotherapist or a licensed mental health counselor to help work through the patient’s feelings. That’s my experience over a number of years.

How do you determine if a patient has back pain from a mind-body issue or another cause?

Dr. Rashbaum: I do a very careful medical history, including a physical examination and review of any diagnostic studies they’ve undergone. In most situations, there’s not really a medical cause of the back pain. For instance, a lot of asymptomatic individuals have all sorts of horrible findings on medical imaging like CTs and MRIs, and the reverse is also true – many people with negative findings on imaging tests experience significant pain. My job as a diagnostician is to see how much of this is really a mind-body problem or something that stems from structural pathology.

How well do your patients react to being told that their back pain is, in a way, “in their head?”

Dr. Rashbaum: I have a skewed population. I’m sort of like a guru in mind-body back pain, so the people who come to me are already thinking along those lines. I ask: “What’s going on in your life?” Maybe there are job issues, marital issues, health issues, and I’d say that it’s certainly possible that stress can be causing this back pain.

Sometimes when I see a patient referred from another physician, I’m a bit hesitant to ask about what’s going on in their life. Even earlier today, I’d seen a patient with back pain and I had a sense that they were not really going to be open to a mind-body approach. So I said, do physical therapy.

What do you recommend primary care clinicians do with patients with back pain?

Dr. Rashbaum: You have to do a proper neurologic examination and musculoskeletal examination. It’s a tough situation because doctors in primary care have limited time to take care of patients. It’s difficult to have a deeper dive just to kind of see what’s going on in their life. But you can recommend useful agents like acetaminophen and muscle relaxants, which are sometimes okay.

What sorts of things do you tell patients to say to themselves when they’re experiencing pain? 

Dr. Rashbaum: If the pain is severe, I recommend they take medication – over-the-counter analgesics or a muscle relaxant, if they have them – and take a warm shower or bath. I prefer acetaminophen up to three times per day, if that’s okay with the patient’s primary care physician, over NSAIDs because most pain is noninflammatory in nature. Once the pain is more manageable, patients should journal about what’s going on in their lives and/or meditate, and try to feel any strong emotions, such as anger, sadness, or fear.

What do you say to clinicians who are dismissive of the notion that chronic pain may stem from emotional repression, and that addressing the latter can resolve the former – particularly those who point to a lack of peer-reviewed data for such a link?

Dr. Rashbaum: I would tell them they could be looking harder for that evidence. For example, in a patient page from JAMA from April 24, 2013, on low back pain, often the cause of back pain is unknown. There are data in spine surgical journals that patients with psychological issues do worse with spine surgery. And in 2016 JAMA published a study from Cherkin and colleagues, which found that, among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with mindfulness-based stress reduction or cognitive behavioral therapy resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, compared with usual care.

My feeling is that these psychosocial interventions are easy to try, relatively inexpensive, noninvasive, and, in my experience, often can lead to marked improvements. I believe that, for the vast majority of people with chronic pain, it makes much more sense to start by addressing mind-body issues than turning to that approach as a last resort.

Dr. Rashbaum reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.

Matt was diagnosed with ADHD combined type when he was 6 years old. Given his age, the family was reluctant to try medications, but after a couple years of parenting classes and reward charts, the parents requested a stimulant. He had significant improvement in focus and impulsivity but also reduced appetite. Now at age 13, irritability and depressive symptoms have been increasing for 9 months. Skeptical of adding another medication, his parents ask whether nutrition might be an alternative tool to treat his symptoms?

While few would argue with the foundational importance of nutrition for healthy childhood development, how to apply nutrition to mental health care becomes a much more nebulous pursuit. What a healthy diet even consists of seems to be a moving target over decades and years. Trendy research, supplements, and dietary approaches proliferate alongside appealing theories of action. In the end, weighing which intervention is effective for which disorder and at what cost becomes murky.

Yet several fundamental principles seem clear and consistent over time and across studies.

Starting early

There is reliable evidence that in the perinatal environment, nutrition sets the stage for many aspects of healthy development. These effects are likely mediated variously through the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, the trillions of gut bacteria that make up the microbiome, gene-environment interactions, and more. Maternal malnutrition and stress prenatally puts infants at risk for not only poor birth outcomes but also psychiatric challenges throughout childhood, such as ADHD, anxiety, depression, and autism.¹

Intervening in the perinatal period has long-term benefits. A first step includes assessing food security, beginning with consistent access to nutritious food. It is important to inquire about the role of food and nutrition in the family’s history and culture, as well as identifying resources to support access to affordable nutrition. This can be paired with parenting interventions, such as family meals without screens. This may require scaffolding positive conversations in high-conflict family settings (see The Family Dinner Project).
 

Healthy diets promote mental health

If food security is achieved, what is next? Clinicians can inquire about the who, what, where, when, and why of nutrition to learn about a family’s eating habits.² While randomized controlled data is very limited, both cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that healthy diets in youth correlate with mental health – more healthy foods reducing internalizing and externalizing disorders, and more typical Western diets increasing the risk. On average, dietary interventions include higher levels of fruits and vegetables, fish, and nuts, and lower levels of processed foods.² There is not evidence that restrictive diets or fasting is appropriate or safe for youth. Additionally, involving children in getting, growing, or preparing food with gradually increasing autonomy fosters self-confidence and skill development.

In those struggling with restrictive eating disorders, food is medicine – helping those with restrictive diets to develop more balanced and adequate intake for metabolic needs. Outside of diagnosable eating disorders, weight or body mass index is less of a goal or marker when it comes to mental health. Instead, look for participation in enjoyable activities, opportunities to move and rest, and a body image that supports self-care and self-confidence (see the National Institutes of Health’s We Can! Program). Creating dissonance with cultural ideals of appearance centered on thinness can prevent future eating disorders.³

Nutraceutical options

Outside of eating disorders, specific foods and plants with health or medicinal properties – variously called nutraceuticals, phytoceuticals, or micronutrients – have emerging evidence in mental health. A 2022 expert academic consensus panel reviewed the literature to create clinical guidelines in this area.⁴ For major depression, adding omega-3 fatty acids to standard antidepressant treatment or standalone St. John’s wort have adequate evidence to recommend, while adjunctive probiotics, zinc, saffron, and curcumin have sufficient though less robust evidence. S-adenosyl methionine, vitamin D, and methyfolate showed only weak evidence for depression, while vitamin C, magnesium, creatine, N-acetylcysteine, folate, and monotherapy omega-3s do not have sufficient evidence to be recommended. For ADHD there was weak support for vitamin D, but no clear evidence for omega-3s, zinc, gingko, or acetyl L-carnitine. For anxiety, there is moderate evidence for ashwagandha and lavender in adults. A child psychiatry review suggests also trying chamomile for generalized anxiety based on the evidence in young adults, and underscores some data for N-acetylcysteine for OCD in particular.⁵

Many of these nutraceuticals exhibit small or moderate effects in a limited number of trials, with generally much less data for youth, compared with adults. While the same could be said for many on- and off-label uses of psychiatric medications for kids, clinicians would be wise to consider these highly specific nutritional interventions as items on the menu of treatment options rather than stand-alone treatments.
 

Revisitng the case study

Reflecting on Matt’s care, his pediatrician first assessed his dietary patterns, noting late-night eating and caffeine use with minimal hydration or fiber across the day. Recommendations for keeping fruit and vegetable snacks easily accessible as well as carrying a water flask are well received. They also discuss adding omega-3 fatty acids and probiotics with his morning stimulant while he awaits a referral for cognitive-behavioral therapy in order to address his depressive symptoms and minimize medication needs.

Beyond addressing food security and balanced family meals, specific interventions may be appropriate as initial treatment adjuncts for mild and some moderate mental illness. For more intense moderate to severe illness, nutritional psychiatry may be considered in combination with treatments with stronger evidence. At a community level, clinicians can help advocate for universal school meal programs to address food security, and so-called salad bar interventions to increase fruit/vegetable uptake among school-age children.

Dr. Rosenfeld is associate professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at University of Vermont and the Vermont Center for Children, Youth, and Families, both in Burlington. He has no disclosures.

References

1 Vohr BR et al. Pediatrics. 2017;139:S38-49.

2. Hosker DK et al. Child Adol Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2019;28(2):171-93.

3. Stice E et al. Int J Eat Disord. 2013;46(5):478-85.

4. Sarris J et al. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2022;23(6):424-55.

5. Simkin DR et al. Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am. 2023;32:193-216.