User login
Bringing you the latest news, research and reviews, exclusive interviews, podcasts, quizzes, and more.
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
Zuranolone: A novel postpartum depression treatment, with lingering questions
Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.
That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?
Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.
Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.
Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.
It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD
Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:
Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.
Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.
Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?
Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.
The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.
Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that , along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.
That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?
Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.
Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.
Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.
It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD
Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:
Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.
Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.
Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?
Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.
The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.
Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that , along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
Postpartum depression (PPD) remains the most common complication in modern obstetrics, and a leading cause of postpartum mortality in the first year of life. The last 15 years have brought considerable progress with respect to adoption of systematic screening for PPD across America. Screening for PPD, most often using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), has become part of routine obstetrical care, and is also widely used in pediatric settings.
That is the good news. But the flip side of the identification of those women whose scores on the EPDS suggest significant depressive symptoms is that the number of these patients who, following identification, receive referrals for adequate treatment that gets them well is unfortunately low. This “perinatal treatment cascade” refers to the majority of women who, on the other side of identification of PPD, fail to receive adequate treatment and continue to have persistent depression (Cox E. et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-1200). This is perhaps the greatest challenge to the field and to clinicians – how do we, on the other side of screening, see that these women get access to care and get well with the available treatments at hand?
Recently, a widely read and circulated article was published in The Wall Street Journal about the challenges associated with navigating care resources for women suffering from PPD. In that article, it was made clear, based on clinical vignette after clinical vignette from postpartum women across America, that neither obstetricians, mental health professionals, nor pediatricians are the “clinical home” for women suffering from postpartum mood and anxiety disorders. The article painfully highlights the system-wide failure to coordinate mental health care for women suffering from postpartum psychiatric illness.
Within a day of the publication of The Wall Street Journal article, the Food and Drug Administration approved zuranolone (Zurzuvae; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.) for the treatment of PPD following the review of two studies demonstrating the superiority of the new medicine over placebo. Women who were enrolled met criteria for major depressive disorder based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria beginning in no earlier than the third trimester of pregnancy or later than 4 weeks of delivery. The two studies included a combined sample size of approximately 350 patients suffering from severe PPD. In the studies, women received either 50 mg or 40 mg of zuranolone, or placebo for 14 days. Treatment was associated with a significant change in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at day 15, and treatment response was maintained at day 42, which was 4 weeks after the last dose of study medication.
Zuranolone is a neuroactive steroid, which is taken orally, unlike brexanolone (Zulresso; Sage Therapeutics; Cambridge, Mass.), which requires intravenous administration. Zuranolone will be commercially available based on estimates around the fourth quarter of 2023. The most common side effects are drowsiness, dizziness, and sedation, and the FDA label will have a boxed warning about zuranolone’s potential to impact a person’s driving ability, and performance of potentially hazardous activities.
It is noteworthy that while this new medication received FDA approval for the PPD indication, it did not receive FDA approval for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), and the agency issued a Complete Response Letter to the manufacturers noting their application did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness in MDD. The FDA said in the Complete Response Letter that an additional study or studies will be needed; the manufacturers are currently evaluating next steps.
Where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe PPD
Many clinicians who support women with PPD will wonder, upon hearing this news, where zuranolone fits into the treatment algorithm for severe postpartum major depression. Some relevant issues that may determine the answer are the following:
Cost. The cost of brexanolone was substantial, at $34,000 per year, and was viewed by some as a limiting factor in terms of its very limited uptake. As of this column’s publication, zuranolone’s manufacturer has not stated how much the medication will cost.
Breastfeeding. Unlike selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, which have been demonstrated to be effective for the treatment of PPD and safe during pregnancy and lactation, we have sparse data on the safety of zuranolone for women who wish to breastfeed. It is also unclear whether women eligible for zuranolone would, based on the limited data on safety in lactation, choose deferral of breastfeeding for 14 days in exchange for treatment.
Duration of treatment. While zuranolone was studied in the context of 14 days of acute treatment, then out to day 42, we have no published data on what happens on the other side of this brief interval. As a simple example, in a patient with a history of recurrent major depression previously treated with antidepressants, but where antidepressants were perhaps deferred during pregnancy, is PPD to be treated with zuranolone for 14 days? Or, hypothetically, should it be followed by empiric antidepressant treatment at day 14? Alternatively, are patient and clinician supposed to wait until recurrence occurs before pursuing adjunctive antidepressant therapy whether it is pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, or both?
Treatment in patients with bipolar disorder. It is also unclear whether treatment with zuranolone applies to other populations of postpartum women. Certainly, for women with bipolar depression, which is common in postpartum women given the vulnerability of bipolar women to new onset of depression or postpartum depressive relapse of underlying disorder, we simply have no data regarding where zuranolone might fit in with respect to this group of patients.
The answers to these questions may help to determine whether zuranolone, a new antidepressant with efficacy, quick time to onset, and a novel mechanism of action is a “game changer.” The article in The Wall Street Journal provided me with some optimism, as it gave PPD and the issues surrounding PPD the attention it deserves in a major periodical. As a new treatment, it may help alleviate suffering at a critical time for patients and their families. We are inching closer to mitigation of stigma associated with this common illness.
Thinking back across the last 3 decades of my treating women suffering from PPD, I have reflected on what has gotten these patients well. I concluded that , along with family and community-based support groups, as well as a culture that reduces stigma and by so doing lessens the toll of this important and too frequently incompletely-treated illness.
Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. The Center for Women’s Mental Health at MGH was a non-enrolling site for the pivotal phase 3 SKYLARK trial evaluating zuranolone. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].
Postpartum depression risk increased among sexual minority women
However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.
“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.
The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.
Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.
To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.
Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.
The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).
Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.
The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.
Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.
The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”
Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”
On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.
“There is a heteronormative bias implicit in most obstetrics clinics, in which pregnant people are automatically gendered as women and assumed to be heterosexual, especially if they present with a male partner,” she said.
Because of those factors, even if a pregnant person discloses sexual identity, that person may request that it not be documented in the chart, she noted.
The higher rates of postpartum depression are consistent with higher rates of mental illness that are reported in general among sexual minority women, pregnant or not, including depression, anxiety, higher rates of substance abuse, stressful life events, and intimate partner violence, compared with heterosexual women, the authors noted.
Develop more supportive systems
To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.
“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.
Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.
“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.
While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.
“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.
Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.
“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.
She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.
“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said.
The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”
Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.
“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”
The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.
However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.
“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.
The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.
Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.
To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.
Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.
The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).
Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.
The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.
Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.
The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”
Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”
On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.
“There is a heteronormative bias implicit in most obstetrics clinics, in which pregnant people are automatically gendered as women and assumed to be heterosexual, especially if they present with a male partner,” she said.
Because of those factors, even if a pregnant person discloses sexual identity, that person may request that it not be documented in the chart, she noted.
The higher rates of postpartum depression are consistent with higher rates of mental illness that are reported in general among sexual minority women, pregnant or not, including depression, anxiety, higher rates of substance abuse, stressful life events, and intimate partner violence, compared with heterosexual women, the authors noted.
Develop more supportive systems
To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.
“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.
Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.
“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.
While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.
“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.
Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.
“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.
She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.
“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said.
The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”
Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.
“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”
The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.
However, with sexual orientation highly underdocumented among women giving birth, understanding of the prevalence is lacking.
“To our knowledge, this cohort study was the first to examine perinatal depression screening and symptom endorsement among sexual minority women in a major medical center in the U.S.,” reported the authors of the study published in JAMA Psychiatry.
The results “highlight the need for investigations that include strategies for measuring sexual orientation because reliance on medical record review has substantial limitations with regard to the research questions and the validity of the data,” they noted.
Clinical guidelines recommend universal perinatal depression screening at obstetric and pediatric well-infant visits; however, there are significant gaps in data on the issue when it comes to sexual minority women.
To assess the prevalence of sexual minority people giving birth and compare perinatal depression screening rates and scores with those of heterosexual cisgender women, the authors conducted a review of medical records of 18,243 female patients who gave birth at a large, diverse, university-based medical center in Chicago between January and December of 2019.
Of the patients, 57.3% of whom were non-Hispanic White, 1.5% (280) had documentation of their sexual orientation, or sexual minority status.
The results show that those identified as being in sexual minorities, including lesbian, bisexual, queer, pansexual or asexual, were more likely than were heterosexual women to be more engaged in their care – they were more likely to have attended at least one prenatal visit (20.0% vs. 13.7%; P = .002) and at least one postpartum care visit (18.6% vs. 12.8%; P = .004), and more likely to be screened for depression during postpartum care (odds ratio, 1.77; P = .002).
Sexual minority women were also significantly more likely to screen positive for depression during the postpartum period than were heterosexual women (odds ratio, 2.38; P = .03); however, all other comparisons were not significantly different.
The finding regarding postpartum depression was consistent with recent literature, including a systematic review indicating that the stress of being in a sexual minority may be heightened during the postpartum period, the authors noted.
Reasons for the heightened stress may include “being perceived as inadequate parents, heteronormativity in perinatal care, such as intake forms asking for information about the child’s father, and lack of familial social support due to nonacceptance of the parents’ sexual orientation,” the researchers explained.
The rate of only 1.5% of people giving birth who identified as a sexual minority was significantly lower than expected, and much lower that the 17% reported in a recent nationally representative sample of women, first author Leiszle Lapping-Carr, PhD, director of the sexual and relationship health program, department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
“I did not expect a rate as low at 1.5%,” she said. “I anticipated it would not be as high as the 17%, but this was quite low. I think one primary reason is that women are not interested in disclosing their sexual orientation to their ob.gyns. if they don’t have to.”
Furthermore, Dr. Lapping-Carr said, “most medical systems do not have an easy way to document sexual orientation or gender identity, and even if it exists many physicians are unaware of the process.”
On a broader level, the lower rates may be indicative of a lack of acknowledgment of sexual minorities in the ob.gyn. setting, Dr. Lapping-Carr added.
“There is a heteronormative bias implicit in most obstetrics clinics, in which pregnant people are automatically gendered as women and assumed to be heterosexual, especially if they present with a male partner,” she said.
Because of those factors, even if a pregnant person discloses sexual identity, that person may request that it not be documented in the chart, she noted.
The higher rates of postpartum depression are consistent with higher rates of mental illness that are reported in general among sexual minority women, pregnant or not, including depression, anxiety, higher rates of substance abuse, stressful life events, and intimate partner violence, compared with heterosexual women, the authors noted.
Develop more supportive systems
To address postpartum depression among sexual minority women, Dr. Lapping-Carr suggested that clinicians generally start by avoiding language and behaviors that could suggest the potential bias that sexual minority patients can face.
“The main change [in treatment] that would likely be helpful for postpartum depression treatment is removing heteronormative language, e.g., not referring to partners as ‘fathers,’ ” she said.
Also, patients may benefit from “discussion of issues of relevance to people with sexual minority identities, such as the process of adoption for female non-birthing partners,” Dr. Lapping-Carr added.
“Starting to create spaces that are inclusive and welcoming for people of all identities will go a long way in increasing your patient’s trust in you,” she said.
While there is a lack of published data regarding increases in rates of sexual minority patients who are giving birth, societal trends suggest the rates may likely be on the rise, Dr. Lapping-Carr said.
“We do know that among adolescents, endorsement of sexual and gender minority identities is much higher than in previous generations, so it would follow that the proportion of birthing people with sexual and gender minority identities would also increase,” she said.
Commenting on the study, K. Ashley Brandt, DO, obstetrics section chief and medical director of Gender Affirming Surgery at Reading Hospital, in West Reading, Pa., noted that limitations include a lack of information about the bigger picture of patients’ risk factors.
“There is no documentation of other risks factors, including rates of depression in the antenatal period, which is higher in LGBTQ individuals and also a risk factor for postpartum depression,” Dr. Brandt told this news organization.
She agreed, however, that patients may be reluctant to report their sexual minority status on the record – but such issues are often addressed.
“I believe that obstetricians do ask this question far more than other providers, but it may not be easily captured in medical records, and patients may also hesitate to disclose sexual practices and sexual orientation due to fear of medical discrimination, which is still extremely prevalent,” Dr. Brandt said.
The study underscores, however, that “same-sex parents are a reality that providers will face,” she said. “They have unique social determinants for health that often go undocumented and unaddressed, which could contribute to higher rates of depression in the postpartum period.”
Factors that may be ignored or undocumented, such as sexual minorities’ religious beliefs or social and familial support, can play significant roles in health care outcomes, Dr. Brandt added.
“Providers need to find ways to better educate themselves about LGBTQ individuals and develop more supportive systems to ensure patients feel safe in disclosing their identities.”
The authors and Dr. Brandt had no disclosures to report.
FROM JAMA PSYCHIATRY
Long COVID–induced activity limitations persist
Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.
Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.
Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.
In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.
Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.
Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.
Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.
Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.
The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
More data are needed to tease out patterns
“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.
The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.
The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.
Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.
However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.
“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.
Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.
Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.
“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.
In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.
Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.
Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.
Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.
In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.
Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.
Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.
Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.
Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.
The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
More data are needed to tease out patterns
“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.
The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.
The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.
Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.
However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.
“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.
Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.
Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.
“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.
In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.
Approximately one-quarter of adults who experience long COVID report activity limitations that do not change over time, based on data from national sample of nonhospitalized individuals.
Symptoms of long COVID, an ongoing medical condition that occurs in the wake of COVID-19 infection, include respiratory, neurologic, cardiovascular, or other complications that may last for weeks, months, or years after infection.
Current estimates of the incidence of long COVID in the United States range from 7.5% to 41%, according to Nicole D. Ford, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, and colleagues. Long COVID has shown a significant effect on patients’ quality of life, functional status, and ability to work, but the impact on activity limitation in particular has not been examined, the researchers said.
In a study published in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), the researchers reviewed data from surveys conducted between June 1 and 13, 2022, and June 7 and 19, 2023. The data came from the Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey (HPS), a cross-sectional national survey designed to measure the social and economic effects of COVID-19 on U.S. households. Surveys were conducted in 2-week cycles (2 weeks on, 2 weeks off). Questions about long COVID were added to the survey beginning on June 1, 2022, and questions about activity limitations from long COVID were added on Sept. 14, 2022, including questions about participants’ abilities to perform daily activities before and after COVID-19 infection.
Overall, the prevalence of long COVID decreased from 7.5% to 6.0% in U.S. adults aged 18 years and older during the study period. However, when stratified by age group, the decline was significant only in adults older than 60 years, and 1 in 10 adults with a history of COVID-19 reported long COVID at the end of the study period.
Among respondents with long COVID, 26.4% of respondents for time period of June 7-19, 2023, reported significant activity limitations, which remained unchanged over time, with no clear pattern in activity limitations across age groups, the researchers said.
Prevalence of long COVID was highest for individuals in middle adulthood (aged 30-39 years, 40-49 years, and 50-59 years) and lowest for younger adults (18-29 years) and older adults (aged 60 years and older). The prevalence of long COVID decreased by 1.16% per survey cycle between the June 1-13 and Jan. 4-16 cycles, but then remained stable, with a decrease of 0.01% per cycle between June 1-13, 2022, and Jan. 4-16, 2023.
Previous studies have shown that activity limitations resulting from long COVID can significantly affect quality of life and functional status, as well as the ability to work or care for others. A recent study in the United Kingdom showed that quality of life scores among long COVID patients were similar to those of individuals with advanced cancer, and more than half of the long COVID patients reported moderately severe functional impairment. “The larger economic and societal impact of long COVID could be far-reaching if working-age adults are unable to maintain employment or care for children or aging parents,” the researchers said.
The current study findings were limited by several factors including potential coverage bias in the survey sample, the relatively low survey response rate, and the inability to collect data on duration of symptoms, COVID-19 vaccination status, treatment during acute infection, and time since COVID-19 illness; any of these factors could affect the reported prevalence of long COVID, the researchers noted.
However, the results suggest the need for continued attention to COVID-19 prevention efforts, including not only staying current with recommended COVID-19 vaccination, but also planning for symptom management and health care service needs of long COVID patients, they concluded.
More data are needed to tease out patterns
“Physicians and patients are still trying to understand long COVID and its implications for the health of affected individuals,” said Noel Deep, MD, in an interview.
The current study shows a prevalence of long COVID in approximately 11% of COVID patients, which is a significant number, said Dr. Deep, a general internist in private practice in Antigo, Wisc., who was not involved in the study. Dr. Deep also serves as chief medical officer and a staff physician at Aspirus Langlade Hospital in Antigo.
The study also was useful to illustrate a decline in the incidence of people affected by long COVID symptoms in the United States and in other countries, he said.
Dr. Deep noted that despite the persistent prevalence of long COVID symptoms overall, he was encouraged by the findings that older adults “who tend to have other underlying health conditions that could put them at a higher risk for adverse health outcomes” reported fewer long COVID symptoms than younger adults.
However, he noted that the high incidence of long COVID symptoms in able-bodied individuals in their 30s and 40s may affect their the economic situations as well as their ability to care for elderly relatives and children who might be dependent on them.
“Physicians and other clinicians should be aware of the symptoms and impacts caused by long COVID,” Dr. Deep said in an interview. “These individuals usually present with a myriad of vague and varying symptoms. Physicians should be cognizant of this situation, ask about previous infection with COVID-19, and utilize the resources of long COVID clinics where available,” he said.
Several factors can affect the assessment and management of patients with long COVID symptoms in primary care practices, said Dr. Deep. First and foremost are the time constraints of detailed evaluation and testing, he said.
Second, primary care clinicians need to be aware of the different symptoms that may be indicative of long COVID including fatigue, neurocognitive symptoms such as brain fog or memory disturbance, respiratory symptoms, and cardiovascular symptoms, as well as olfactory and gustatory symptoms. “These symptoms can be confounded by underlying health conditions, especially in elderly individuals,” he noted.
“Recommendations and guidelines are evolving regarding the evaluation and management of patients with long COVID that should help physicians and other clinicians in the future,” said Dr. Deep.
In the meantime, having a high index of suspicion, paying attention to the symptoms described by the patient, and taking a proper history with regard to previous COVID-19 infection should help overcome some of these challenges, he said.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Deep had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of Internal Medicine News.
FROM MMWR
Controversial issue of maintenance therapy for bipolar depression still unresolved
Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.
However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.
“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Controversial issue
Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.
Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.
Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.
Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.
The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.
The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.
At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.
The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).
The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.
“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.
However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.
“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.
“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.
Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).
The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.
The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.
Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.
Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability.
In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
Need for an individualized approach
Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.
“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.
“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.
“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”
Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”
“But the main finding is indeed that there was no significant advantage with 52 [weeks] continuation, except maybe increasing time to relapse. There are indeed a number of interesting findings in the secondary analyses, but sample size may have limited certainty,” Dr. Trivedi said.
“It seems that the results would not suggest a change in the current guidelines, and yet, we have to also mention that, for now, one has to make individual decisions and maybe recommend a more definitive complete trial,” added Dr. Trivedi, who was not involved in the study.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Bausch Health (formerly Valeant), Lundbeck, and Lupin provided trial medications but were not involved in the design or conduct of the trial, data collection or analyses, writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Disclosures for authors are available at the conclusion of the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.
However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.
“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Controversial issue
Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.
Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.
Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.
Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.
The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.
The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.
At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.
The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).
The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.
“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.
However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.
“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.
“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.
Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).
The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.
The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.
Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.
Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability.
In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
Need for an individualized approach
Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.
“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.
“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.
“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”
Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”
“But the main finding is indeed that there was no significant advantage with 52 [weeks] continuation, except maybe increasing time to relapse. There are indeed a number of interesting findings in the secondary analyses, but sample size may have limited certainty,” Dr. Trivedi said.
“It seems that the results would not suggest a change in the current guidelines, and yet, we have to also mention that, for now, one has to make individual decisions and maybe recommend a more definitive complete trial,” added Dr. Trivedi, who was not involved in the study.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Bausch Health (formerly Valeant), Lundbeck, and Lupin provided trial medications but were not involved in the design or conduct of the trial, data collection or analyses, writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Disclosures for authors are available at the conclusion of the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks, as opposed to stopping it at 8 weeks, was not more beneficial with regard to the primary outcome of occurrence of any mood episode.
However, a prespecified sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome and of the secondary analyses suggests that continuing antidepressant therapy for 52 weeks may prolong the time to a depressive relapse.
“Because the primary outcome is negative and the prespecified sensitivity analysis is positive and the secondary outcomes are positive, some clinicians will pick the position that they work and some that they don’t work,” lead investigator Lakshmi Yatham, MBBS, with University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told this news organization.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Controversial issue
Adjunctive antidepressant therapy – alongside mood stabilizers and/or second-generation antipsychotic medications – are often used to treat acute depressive episodes in patients with bipolar I disorder.
Currently, the Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) and International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) advise discontinuing antidepressant treatment 8 weeks after remission of depression.
Yet, the duration of antidepressant therapy for bipolar depression is “highly controversial,” due to a lack of evidence and concerns that antidepressants may induce mania, mixed states, or rapid cycling between mania and depression, Dr. Yatham said.
Dr. Yatham and colleagues assessed the safety and efficacy of continuing adjunctive antidepressant treatment (escitalopram or bupropion XL) for 52 weeks after remission, compared with discontinuing antidepressant therapy at 8 weeks after remission.
The final analysis included 177 patients (mean age 41 years, 48% men) with bipolar I disorder who had remission of depression; 90 patients continued treatment with an antidepressant for 52 weeks and 87 were switched to placebo at 8 weeks. All were taking a mood stabilizer or a second-generation antipsychotic or both.
The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide.
At 52 weeks, 28 patients (31%) in the 52-week group had experienced any mood episode (primary outcome), compared with 40 patients (46%) in the 8-week group.
The primary outcome did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.10; P = .12).
The researchers note that the decision by the study team to include relapses that occurred during the first 6 weeks of the study may have affected the primary outcome.
“During the first 6 weeks, both groups were getting the same treatment, and we thought there shouldn’t be any difference in relapse, but sadly, there were more relapses in the 52-week group even though the treatments were identical,” Dr. Yatham said.
However, in a sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome after week 6, when treatment between the two groups differed, patients continuing antidepressant treatment were 40% less likely to experience a relapse of any mood event (HR, 0.60) and 59% less likely to experience a depressive episode (HR, 0.41) relative to the placebo group.
“From the point where the two groups began receiving different treatments, we see a significant benefit for patients who continued treatment with antidepressants,” Dr. Yatham said in a news release.
“Treating depression in bipolar disorder is challenging. Reducing the risk of relapse is important because it can provide patients with a great deal of stability that ultimately lets them get back to the activities they enjoy and can greatly improve their quality of life,” he added.
Although fewer patients in the 52-week group than 8-week group had a depressive episode within 52 weeks (17% vs. 40%; HR, 0.43), more had a manic or hypomanic event (12% vs. 6%; HR, 2.28).
The estimated probability of remaining free of a depressive episode at 52 weeks was 72% in the 52-week group versus 53% in the 8-week group. The estimated probability of remaining free of a manic episode at 52 weeks was 81% and 92%, respectively.
The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups, with a low rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and no serious adverse events. Clinically significant weight gain (≥ 7% increase in body weight) was observed in 14% of patients in the 52-week group and 7% of patients in the 8-week group.
Limitations of the trial include the fact that it was stopped early, before the planned sample size was reached, owing to slow recruitment and funding issues.
Other limitations include a lack of ethnic diversity (only 12% were White and < 1% Black) and overrepresentation of patients from India, which may limit generalizability.
In addition, the findings may not be applicable to treatment with antidepressants other than escitalopram and buproprion XL. Finally, the study population was also enriched for patients who responded to these antidepressants.
Need for an individualized approach
Commenting on the study, Roger McIntyre, MD, professor of psychiatry in pharmacology, University of Toronto, noted the study was not easy to conduct, and the investigators should be credited for conducting a maintenance study in bipolar depression.
“Although the study reports, as it should, that there is no evidence of maintenance effect, the secondary analysis, which was not adjusted for multiplicity, does suggest that there is a benefit,” said Dr. McIntyre, who was not associated with this research.
“However, the authors are also correct in stating that one cannot draw a conclusion because it was not the primary question and was not adjusted for multiplicity,” he added.
“If anything,” said Dr. McIntyre, “what these results do support is the notion that antidepressants are unlikely to destabilize all patients. Instead, the risk of destabilization seems to be largely limited to some persons, and there is a suggestion, based on the secondary outcome of this study, that maintenance antidepressant benefits can be seen in some people. But again that’s a testable hypothesis.”
Also weighing in on the research, Madhukar H. Trivedi, MD, professor of psychiatry and director, Center for Depression Research and Clinical Care, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, said the study is “interesting,” adding that it was “unfortunate that the researchers had to curtail recruitment and reduce the size of the trial.”
“But the main finding is indeed that there was no significant advantage with 52 [weeks] continuation, except maybe increasing time to relapse. There are indeed a number of interesting findings in the secondary analyses, but sample size may have limited certainty,” Dr. Trivedi said.
“It seems that the results would not suggest a change in the current guidelines, and yet, we have to also mention that, for now, one has to make individual decisions and maybe recommend a more definitive complete trial,” added Dr. Trivedi, who was not involved in the study.
The study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Bausch Health (formerly Valeant), Lundbeck, and Lupin provided trial medications but were not involved in the design or conduct of the trial, data collection or analyses, writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Disclosures for authors are available at the conclusion of the original article.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
What did you learn in med school that you disagree with now?
Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.
Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
Treat appropriately for pain
Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.
“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”
Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”
Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.
“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine
Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.
“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.
Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.
“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.
Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
Patient care is at the core of medicine
Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.
“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”
But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.
“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”
Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.
“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
Physician, heal thyself
Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”
Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
Practice with gender at the forefront
Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.
“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”
Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.
“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.
“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
Talk about racial disparities
John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.
“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”
Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
Information at your fingertips
For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.
“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.
Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
Treat appropriately for pain
Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.
“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”
Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”
Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.
“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine
Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.
“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.
Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.
“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.
Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
Patient care is at the core of medicine
Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.
“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”
But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.
“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”
Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.
“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
Physician, heal thyself
Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”
Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
Practice with gender at the forefront
Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.
“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”
Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.
“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.
“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
Talk about racial disparities
John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.
“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”
Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
Information at your fingertips
For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.
“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Medical education has changed drastically over the years. As theories and practices continue to change, what was once standard 10 or 20 years ago has been replaced with newer ideologies, processes, or technology. It seems likely, then, that you may disagree with some of the things that you learned as medical school has evolved.
Many of their answers include newer philosophies and practice methods.
Treat appropriately for pain
Jacqui O’Kane, DO, a 2013 med school graduate, was taught to avoid prescribing controlled medications whenever possible.
“Initially this attitude made sense to me,” says Dr. O’Kane, “but as I became an experienced physician – and patient – I saw the harm that such an attitude could cause. Patients on controlled medication long-term were often viewed as drug-seekers and treated as such, even if their regimen was largely regarded as appropriate. Likewise, those who could benefit from short-term controlled prescriptions were sometimes denied them because of their clinician’s fear.”
Today, Dr. O’Kane believes controlled medications should seldom be the first option for patients suffering pain, anxiety, or insomnia. But, she says, “they should remain on the table and without judgment for those who fail first-line treatment or for whom alternatives are contraindicated.”
Amy Baxter, MD, believes that the amount of time spent on pain education in school needs to change.
“Doctors in the U.S. get only 12 hours of pain education, and most of it is on pharmacology,” says Dr. Baxter, who graduated from med school in 1995. “In addition to incorrect information on home opioids and addiction, I was left with the impression that medication could treat chronic pain. I now have a completely different understanding of pain as a whole-brain warning system. The goal shouldn’t be pain-free, just more comfortable.”
Practice lifestyle and preventive medicine
Dolapo Babalola, MD, went to medical school eager to learn how to care for the human body and her family members’ illnesses, such as the debilitating effects of arthritic pain and other chronic diseases.
“I was taught the pathology behind arthritic pain, symptoms, signs, and treatment – that it has a genetic component and is inevitable to avoid – but nothing about how to prevent it,” says Dr. Babalola, a 2000 graduate.
Twenty years later, she discovered lifestyle medicine when she began to experience knee pain.
“I was introduced to the power of health restoration by discovering the root cause of diseases such as inflammation, hormonal imbalance, and insulin resistance due to poor lifestyle choices such as diet, inactivity, stress, inadequate sleep, and substance abuse,” she says.
Adebisi Alli, DO, who graduated in 2011, remembers being taught to treat type 2 diabetes by delaying progression rather than aiming for remission. But today, “lifestyle-led, team-based approaches are steadily becoming a first prescription across medical training with the goal to put diabetes in remission,” she says.
Patient care is at the core of medicine
Tracey O’Connell, MD, recalls her radiology residency in the early to mid-90s, when radiologists were integral to the health care team.
“We interacted with referrers and followed the course of patients’ diseases,” says Dr. O’Connell. “We knew patient histories, their stories. We were connected to other humans, doctors, nurses, teams, and the patients themselves.”
But with the advent of picture archiving and communication systems, high-speed CT and MRI, digital radiography, and voice recognition, the practice of radiology has changed dramatically.
“There’s no time to review or discuss cases anymore,” she says. “Reports went from eloquent and articulate documents with lists of differential diagnoses to short checklists and templates. The whole field of patient care has become dehumanizing, exactly the opposite of what humans need.”
Mache Seibel, MD, who graduated almost 50 years ago, agrees that patient care has lost its focus, to the detriment of patients.
“What I learned in medical school that is forgotten today is how to listen to patients, take a history, and do an examination using my hands and a stethoscope,” says Dr. Seibel. “Today with technology and time constraints, the focus is too much on the symptom without context, ordering a test, and getting the EMR boxes filled out.”
Physician, heal thyself
Priya Radhakrishnan, MD, remembers learning that a physician’s well-being was their responsibility. “We now know that well-being is the health system’s responsibility and that we need to diagnose ourselves and support each other, especially our trainees,” says Dr. Radhakrishna. She graduated in 1992. “Destigmatizing mental health is essential to well-being.”
Rachel Miller, MD, a 2009 med school graduate was taught that learning about health care systems and policy wasn’t necessary. Dr. Miller says they learned that policy knowledge would come in time. “I currently disagree. It is vital to understand aspects of health care systems and policy. Not knowing these things has partly contributed to the pervasiveness of burnout among physicians and other health care providers.”
Practice with gender at the forefront
Janice L. Werbinski, MD, an ob.gyn., and Elizabeth Anne Comen, MD, a breast cancer oncologist, remember when nearly all medical research was performed on the 140-lb White man. Doctors learned to treat patients through that male lens.
“The majority of the anatomy we saw in medical school was on a male figure,” says Dr. Comen, author of “All in Her Head,” a HarperCollins book slated to be released in February 2024. She graduated from med school in 2004. “The only time we saw anatomy for females was in the female reproductive system. That’s changing for the better.”
Dr. Werbinski chose a residency in obstetrics and gynecology in 1975 because she thought it was the only way she could serve female patients.
“I really thought that was the place for women’s health,” says Dr. Werbinski, cochair of the American Medical Women’s Association Sex & Gender Health Coalition.
“I am happy to say that significant awareness has grown since I graduated from medical school. I hope that when this question is asked of current medical students, they will be able to say that they know to practice with a sex- and gender-focused lens.”
Talk about racial disparities
John McHugh, MD, an ob.gyn., recalls learning little about the social determinants of health when he attended med school more than 30 years ago.
“We saw disparities in outcomes based on race and class but assumed that we would overcome them when we were in practice,” says Dr. McHugh, an AMWA Action Coalition for Equity member. “We didn’t understand the root causes of disparities and had never heard of concepts like epigenetics or weathering. I’m hopeful current research will help our understanding and today’s medical students will serve a safer, healthier, and more equitable world.”
Curtiland Deville, MD, an associate professor of radiation oncology, recalls having few conversations around race; racial disparities; and diversity, equity, and inclusion.
“When I went to medical school, it often felt like you weren’t supposed to talk about the differences in race,” says Dr. Deville, who graduated in 2005. But today, in the post-2020 era between COVID, during which health disparities got highlighted, and calls for racial justice taking center stage, Dr. Deville says many of the things they didn’t talk about have come to the forefront in our medical institutions.
Information at your fingertips
For Paru David, MD, a 1996 graduate, the most significant change is the amount of health and medical information available today. “Before, the information that was taught in medical school was obtained through textbooks or within journal articles,” says Dr. David.
“Now, we have databases of information. The key to success is being able to navigate the information available to us, digest it with a keen eye, and then apply it to patient care in a timely manner.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
A better way to measure antidepressant response?
Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).
Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.
“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.
“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.
The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.
What’s the best tool?
“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.
However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.
Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”
Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.
The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.
A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.
Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
Doing better than we think
The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.
To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:
- 14 depressive symptoms.
- 11 nondepressive symptoms.
- 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
- 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
- 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
- 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).
Patients were divided into three groups:
- Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
- PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
- Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).
The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.
Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.
Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.
Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.
As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).
“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
‘Better enough’
Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.
“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”
Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”
He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).
Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.
“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.
“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.
The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.
What’s the best tool?
“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.
However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.
Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”
Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.
The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.
A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.
Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
Doing better than we think
The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.
To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:
- 14 depressive symptoms.
- 11 nondepressive symptoms.
- 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
- 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
- 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
- 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).
Patients were divided into three groups:
- Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
- PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
- Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).
The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.
Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.
Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.
Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.
As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).
“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
‘Better enough’
Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.
“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”
Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”
He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators assessed more than 800 patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) attending a partial hospital program. The patients completed questionnaires about depressive symptoms as well as functioning and broader measures of quality of life (QoL).
Although fewer than 40% were classified as treatment responders on the basis of depressive symptoms, as measured by the Remission from Depression Questionnaire (RDQ), two-thirds met criteria as responders on the Patient Global Rating of Improvement (PGI) scale, which takes into consideration broader domains of life satisfaction.
“The treatments we’re offering patients may be doing a better job than we think in treating depression, because many patients say they feel significantly better, even if their depression symptoms haven’t been diminished by the arbitrary threshold of 50% or greater improvement,” study investigator Mark Zimmerman, MD, professor of psychiatry and human behavior, Brown University, Providence, R.I., told this news organization.
“Many of these patients – even if they have ongoing depressive symptoms – nevertheless say treatment has been very or extremely helpful, which is picked by other emphasizes in outcome, such as functioning, quality of life, coping abilities, and positive mental health,” added Dr. Zimmerman, director of the outpatient division at the Partial Hospital Program, Rhode Island Hospital.
The study was published online in the Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.
What’s the best tool?
“Almost all studies of depression treatment rely on measures of symptom severity to evaluate outcome – which is understandable, because a diagnosis of MDD requires a minimum number of symptoms for a sustained period of time,” said Dr. Zimmerman.
However, while important, symptom reduction is only one component of depression treatment. Improving overall function, QoL, and ability to deal with life’s stressors are equally important, he said.
Dr. Zimmerman emphasized he’s an “advocate, supporter, and practitioner of measurement-based care.” This approach, he said, “increases efficiency of the visit and directs me to the areas I should be inquiring about and the areas that need less time for inquiry.”
Measurement tools also enable numerical documentation of how a patient is doing and helps them understand and recognize their improvement.
The question is which tool captures improvements most effectively. Several surveys show that patients value improved functioning and QoL as primary treatment goals, which “is different from the emphasis of symptom improvement found in research,” said Dr. Zimmerman.
A multidimensional questionnaire that assesses functioning, QoL, and coping ability as well as symptoms is more likely to reflect patients’ treatment goals than simply measuring symptoms, he said.
Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor reported on findings from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) Project, which “examined the concordance between patients’ global rating of improvement from treatment and responder status, based on a depression symptoms severity scale.”
Doing better than we think
The study was conducted in Rhode Island Hospital’s department of psychiatry partial hospital program, where 844 patients with MDD (65.2% women; mean [SD] age, 36.8 [13.9] years) completed the RDQ – a self-report measure that “assesses constructs that patients consider to be relevant for assessing treatment outcome.” This questionnaire assesses symptom and nonsymptom domains that people consider important when evaluating treatment effectiveness.
To the original 41-item questionnaire, the researchers added 19 items. The final 60-item questionnaire included the following:
- 14 depressive symptoms.
- 11 nondepressive symptoms.
- 5 coping ability/stress tolerance items (for instance, “I had trouble handling pressure”).
- 12 positive mental health items (for instance, “I saw myself as a person of value”).
- 10 functioning items (for instance, “I was socially withdrawn”).
- 8 general well-being/life satisfaction items (for instance, “I was engaging in life rather than hiding from it”).
Patients were divided into three groups:
- Symptom responders (whose scores on the RDQ depressive symptom subscale improved by ≥ 50% from admission to discharge).
- PGI responders, who weren’t symptom responders – that is, who reported global improvement but didn’t improve ≥ 50% on the depression symptom subscale.
- Nonresponders (that is, patients who didn’t respond on the PGI and the depressive symptom subscale).
The researchers compared the three groups on the four symptom domains of the RDQ. Patients also completed the PGI on discharge, and the researchers compared these responses to responses to the RDQ.
Only 38.7% were responders on the depressive symptoms subscale, while 67.4% were PGI responders.
Most patients (91.4%) who were responders on the depressive symptom subscale were also PGI responders, while 32% were PGI responders but not responders on the depressive symptom subscale.
Although 29.2% were nonresponders on both measures, 70.8% were responders on one scale or the other.
As far as the nonsymptom domains, response rates varied between 30% (life satisfaction) to 33.1% (positive mental health).
“If you’re using a measurement tool in practice, I’d recommend one that goes beyond symptom improvement and also captures broader domains,” Dr. Zimmerman said.
‘Better enough’
Commenting on the study, Philip Muskin, MD, professor of psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, said the use of symptom-driven rating scales to measure depression response originated in mandates of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to determine whether a drug being tested in a clinical trial is superior to placebo.
“But there has been, for a long time, the question of whether these people are really better,” said Dr. Muskin, who was not involved with the current study. “Symptomatically, they may show improvement, but do they actually perceive themselves as better?”
Some patients might report, “I’m about 75% myself, but not back to 100%.” Dr. Muskin doesn’t “take these to be hard-and-fast numbers, but patients can tell you how they perceive themselves. This study suggests that if you’re wedded to [symptom measurement] scales, you may not realize that patients are actually getting better. And who decides if a patient is better, or better enough? The patient decides that.”
He added that some patients won’t achieve complete remission. “Even if I can’t get the person to be 100% better, I’m glad if I can help them become ‘better enough’ to function in life, do things, go to work, and improve in quality-of-life domains.”
The study received no outside funding. Dr. Zimmerman and his coauthor and Dr. Muskin report no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM ANNALS OF CLINICAL PSYCHIATRY
Autism tied to higher rates of self-harm, suicide
TOPLINE:
Even after accounting for sociodemographic factors, intellectual disabilities, and psychiatric diagnoses,
METHODOLOGY:
Evidence shows those with autism have over threefold greater odds than their counterparts without the disorder of self-injurious behavior, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death, but reasons for these elevated risks are unclear.
Using various linked databases in the province of Ontario, researchers identified all individuals with an autism diagnosis from April 1, 1988, to March 31, 2018, and matched each on age and sex to four nonautistic individuals for the comparison group.
Investigators created two cohorts to separately evaluate outcomes of self-harm events leading to emergency health care and suicide death with the accrual period for both cohorts beginning at a person’s 10th birthday.
The self-harm cohort included 379,630 individuals while the suicide cohort included 334,690 individuals.
TAKEAWAY:
Over 15 years, autistic females showed the highest cumulative self-harm events, followed by autistic males, nonautistic females, and nonautistic males; over 25 years, autistic males had the highest cumulative incidence of suicide death, followed by autistic females, nonautistic males, and nonautistic females.
Autism had independent associations with self-harm events (females: relative rate, 1.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.61-2.08]; males: RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.69]) even after accounting for sociodemographic factors (varied directions of associations), intellectual disabilities (associated with increased risks), and psychiatric diagnoses including mood and anxiety, psychotic, addiction, and personality disorders (associated with increased risks).
For both females and males, final models showed autism per se was not significantly associated with suicide death, but certain correlates were linked to risk. Among both sexes, intellectual disabilities were associated with reduced risks and psychiatric diagnoses were associated with increased risks.
As a substantial proportion (28.4%) of the suicide cohort did not have data on self-harm, researchers were unable to examine the association of self-harm with suicide death.
IN PRACTICE:
That psychiatric diagnoses increased suicide risks among people with autism suggests supports to reduce such risks “should consider multifactorial mechanisms, with a particular focus on the prevention and timely treatment of psychiatric illnesses,” write the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Meng-Chuan Lai, MD, PhD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The autism cohort didn’t capture those diagnosed in private practices or with subtle presentations not yet diagnosed. Misclassification of autistic people in the nonautistic cohort may have resulted in underestimation of suicide-related outcomes. The administrative data don’t reliably identify diagnoses associated with suicide risks such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or subcategories of mood disorders, and don’t contain information about risk and protective mechanisms of suicide behaviors such as family history.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from ICES, an independent nonprofit research institute; the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; the Academic Scholars Award from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto; and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair. Dr. Lai reported receiving personal fees from SAGE Publications as an editorial honorarium outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving honoraria from the BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Even after accounting for sociodemographic factors, intellectual disabilities, and psychiatric diagnoses,
METHODOLOGY:
Evidence shows those with autism have over threefold greater odds than their counterparts without the disorder of self-injurious behavior, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death, but reasons for these elevated risks are unclear.
Using various linked databases in the province of Ontario, researchers identified all individuals with an autism diagnosis from April 1, 1988, to March 31, 2018, and matched each on age and sex to four nonautistic individuals for the comparison group.
Investigators created two cohorts to separately evaluate outcomes of self-harm events leading to emergency health care and suicide death with the accrual period for both cohorts beginning at a person’s 10th birthday.
The self-harm cohort included 379,630 individuals while the suicide cohort included 334,690 individuals.
TAKEAWAY:
Over 15 years, autistic females showed the highest cumulative self-harm events, followed by autistic males, nonautistic females, and nonautistic males; over 25 years, autistic males had the highest cumulative incidence of suicide death, followed by autistic females, nonautistic males, and nonautistic females.
Autism had independent associations with self-harm events (females: relative rate, 1.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.61-2.08]; males: RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.69]) even after accounting for sociodemographic factors (varied directions of associations), intellectual disabilities (associated with increased risks), and psychiatric diagnoses including mood and anxiety, psychotic, addiction, and personality disorders (associated with increased risks).
For both females and males, final models showed autism per se was not significantly associated with suicide death, but certain correlates were linked to risk. Among both sexes, intellectual disabilities were associated with reduced risks and psychiatric diagnoses were associated with increased risks.
As a substantial proportion (28.4%) of the suicide cohort did not have data on self-harm, researchers were unable to examine the association of self-harm with suicide death.
IN PRACTICE:
That psychiatric diagnoses increased suicide risks among people with autism suggests supports to reduce such risks “should consider multifactorial mechanisms, with a particular focus on the prevention and timely treatment of psychiatric illnesses,” write the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Meng-Chuan Lai, MD, PhD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The autism cohort didn’t capture those diagnosed in private practices or with subtle presentations not yet diagnosed. Misclassification of autistic people in the nonautistic cohort may have resulted in underestimation of suicide-related outcomes. The administrative data don’t reliably identify diagnoses associated with suicide risks such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or subcategories of mood disorders, and don’t contain information about risk and protective mechanisms of suicide behaviors such as family history.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from ICES, an independent nonprofit research institute; the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; the Academic Scholars Award from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto; and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair. Dr. Lai reported receiving personal fees from SAGE Publications as an editorial honorarium outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving honoraria from the BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TOPLINE:
Even after accounting for sociodemographic factors, intellectual disabilities, and psychiatric diagnoses,
METHODOLOGY:
Evidence shows those with autism have over threefold greater odds than their counterparts without the disorder of self-injurious behavior, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, or suicide death, but reasons for these elevated risks are unclear.
Using various linked databases in the province of Ontario, researchers identified all individuals with an autism diagnosis from April 1, 1988, to March 31, 2018, and matched each on age and sex to four nonautistic individuals for the comparison group.
Investigators created two cohorts to separately evaluate outcomes of self-harm events leading to emergency health care and suicide death with the accrual period for both cohorts beginning at a person’s 10th birthday.
The self-harm cohort included 379,630 individuals while the suicide cohort included 334,690 individuals.
TAKEAWAY:
Over 15 years, autistic females showed the highest cumulative self-harm events, followed by autistic males, nonautistic females, and nonautistic males; over 25 years, autistic males had the highest cumulative incidence of suicide death, followed by autistic females, nonautistic males, and nonautistic females.
Autism had independent associations with self-harm events (females: relative rate, 1.83 [95% confidence interval, 1.61-2.08]; males: RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.28-1.69]) even after accounting for sociodemographic factors (varied directions of associations), intellectual disabilities (associated with increased risks), and psychiatric diagnoses including mood and anxiety, psychotic, addiction, and personality disorders (associated with increased risks).
For both females and males, final models showed autism per se was not significantly associated with suicide death, but certain correlates were linked to risk. Among both sexes, intellectual disabilities were associated with reduced risks and psychiatric diagnoses were associated with increased risks.
As a substantial proportion (28.4%) of the suicide cohort did not have data on self-harm, researchers were unable to examine the association of self-harm with suicide death.
IN PRACTICE:
That psychiatric diagnoses increased suicide risks among people with autism suggests supports to reduce such risks “should consider multifactorial mechanisms, with a particular focus on the prevention and timely treatment of psychiatric illnesses,” write the authors.
SOURCE:
The study was conducted by Meng-Chuan Lai, MD, PhD, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, and colleagues. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.
LIMITATIONS:
The autism cohort didn’t capture those diagnosed in private practices or with subtle presentations not yet diagnosed. Misclassification of autistic people in the nonautistic cohort may have resulted in underestimation of suicide-related outcomes. The administrative data don’t reliably identify diagnoses associated with suicide risks such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or subcategories of mood disorders, and don’t contain information about risk and protective mechanisms of suicide behaviors such as family history.
DISCLOSURES:
The study received support from ICES, an independent nonprofit research institute; the Innovation Fund of the Alternative Funding Plan for the Academic Health Sciences Centres of Ontario; the Academic Scholars Award from the Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto; and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Sex and Gender Science Chair. Dr. Lai reported receiving personal fees from SAGE Publications as an editorial honorarium outside the submitted work. One coauthor reported receiving honoraria from the BMJ Group, Archives of Diseases in Childhood.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Physician-assisted suicide for mental illness – right or wrong?
Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.
However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.
A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”
Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
Cognitive distortion or objective reality?
Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.
But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.
A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”
Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”
“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”
Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”
Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
“Enormous suffering”
One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.
But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”
The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”
One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”
Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”
Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”
A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.
“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”
However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
Another form of eugenics?
Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.
“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”
Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.
A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”
Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”
Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.
Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.
However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.
A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”
Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
Cognitive distortion or objective reality?
Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.
But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.
A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”
Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”
“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”
Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”
Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
“Enormous suffering”
One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.
But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”
The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”
One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”
Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”
Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”
A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.
“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”
However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
Another form of eugenics?
Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.
“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”
Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.
A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”
Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”
Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.
Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Until recently, this contentious issue applied only to patients with physical illnesses who want to end their suffering and who seek out a physician willing to assist with that objective. In the United States and other countries, this is the patient population who may be able to avail themselves of this option.
However, newly proposed legislation in Canada – which has the largest number of physician-assisted deaths worldwide – would expand the indication for MAID to include serious mental illness. Originally set to be passed in March 2023, the law has been deferred for final decision until March 2024.
A recent commentary by psychiatrist Dinah Miller, MD, explored the ethics of this proposed legislation for mental health professionals. “To offer the option of death facilitated by the very person who is trying to get [patients with serious mental illness] better seems so counter to everything I have learned and contradicts our role as psychiatrists who work so hard to prevent suicide,” Dr. Miller wrote. “As psychiatrists, do we offer hope to our most vulnerable patients, or do we offer death? Do we rail against suicide, or do we facilitate it?”
Dr. Miller’s piece garnered a huge amount of reader response that included many laudatory comments: a “nuanced and open-ended inquiry here,” “timely and honest,” and “beautifully written.” One reader thanked the author for “this thoughtful, questioning, and open reflection on what it means to be a psychiatrist facing a thorny and deeply personal practice and philosophical question.”
Cognitive distortion or objective reality?
Many readers were opposed to any type of physician involvement in hastening a patient’s death, regardless of whether the condition is medical or psychiatric. “Let others who wish to die make their own arrangement without the aid of the medical profession,” one reader wrote.
But others felt that for those with terminal physical illnesses or intractable pain, it is justified for medical professionals to either facilitate death or, at the very least, withhold life-prolonging treatments.
A critical-care physician described responding to families’ accusations that withdrawal of life-sustaining measures means “playing God.” On the contrary, the physician wrote, “there is a limit to our abilities; and withdrawing those life-prolonging interventions allows nature or God or whatever to play a role and take its course.”
Another U.S. reader pointed out that “multiple polls in this country have shown that the majority of the general public, physicians in general and psychiatrists in particular, support the option of MAID for the terminally ill. They do not find it at variance with their calling as physicians.”
“I and many of my elderly friends don’t fear death but fear prolonged dementia with its dependency and lack of quality of life,” one reader wrote. “We would be much more at peace if we could put in our advanced directive that we request MAID once some point of dependency has been reached.”
Another wrote that in the event of entering a state of “degrading dependency and hardship on the family, please let me go peacefully, without burdening others, into that good night [of death].”
Many felt that not only physical illness but also the prospect of cognitive degeneration – specifically dementia – also justifies assisting patient death.
“Enormous suffering”
One Canadian reader noted that provisions for advance consent are now in place in Canada for those facing the prospect of neurodegenerative disease and who are still mentally competent to make such decisions.
But therein lies the rub – the concept of an advanced directive goes to the question of decisional capacity. Dr. Miller noted that “depression distorts cognition and leads many patients to believe that they would be better off dead and that their loves ones would be better off without them.”
The concept of “cognitive distortion” implies that the illness itself may impede the decisional capacity required for an advanced directive or a decision made in the moment, in the absence of such a directive. Dr. Miller asked, “How do we determine whether patients with serious mental illness are competent to make such a decision or whether it is mental illness that is driving their perception of a future without hope?”
One reader attested to this from personal experience. “As both a physician and a sufferer of severe, often profound depression for 50 years, I can confidently say that ... the pursuit of death is the result of an impaired mental state, which simultaneously prevents a rational decision.”
Another agreed. “As a psychiatrist, I treated suicidal patients almost every day of my 27-year career. I believe in making every effort to prevent the suicide of a healthy depressed person and I do not support MAID for psychiatric conditions. But I do support MAID for the terminally ill.”
Other readers disagreed. In the words of one commentator, “I think that if we are going to help mentally ill people, we have to consider their choices. The stress imposed by a severe/intractable mental illness is as bad as any other devastating medical illness. If no one is going to hold their hand in life (as support services are limited and psychiatric treatments often fail), allow a medical professional to hold their hand through their final moments.”
A psychiatrist described very ill patients with treatment-resistant bipolar disorder who had not only received medications, including ketamine, but had also received electroconvulsive therapy and still did not respond.
“Their suffering is enormous and the truth is that there is no improvement for more than a few days or weeks and later they return to their hell. Appreciating that they would be better off dead for themselves and their families is not always a cognitive distortion but an objective evaluation of their reality.”
However, as another reader pointed out, an issue with the argument presented here is that it presupposes that MAID requires “clinical justification.” But in Canada, “MAID ... is understood as an expression of personal autonomy. Rooted in liberal political philosophy of individualism ... approval for death need not be based on a clinical assessment.” Instead, “death is seen as a ‘right’ that the state must therefore provide.”
Another form of eugenics?
Dr. Miller raised the ethical implications of racial and socioeconomic factors playing a role in the consideration of MAID for those with psychiatric illness.
“Might those who are poor, who have less access to expensive treatment options and social support, be more likely to request facilitated death?” she asks. “Do we risk facilitating a patient’s demise when other options are unavailable because of a lack of access to treatment or when social and financial struggles exacerbate a person’s hopelessness? Should we worry that psychiatric euthanasia will turn into a form of eugenics where those who can’t contribute are made to feel that they should bow out?”
Several readers agreed. “Looking at the disproportionate burden of illness, rates of imprisonment, and application of the death penalty indicates to me that race and socioeconomic status will be an immediate factor in how, where, and with whom MAID for mental illness would be practice in much, if not all, of the U.S.,” wrote one physician.
A Canadian reader expressed similar concerns. “I’ve seen a handful of people, including someone I considered a good friend, opt for MAID because it was easier than living as a disabled person in poverty without adequate mental health care.”
Another Canadian clinician noted that offering people good care can make all the difference. “As a Canadian mental health clinician who served youth with severe mental illness for over 20 years through our socialized medical network, I can attest to the difference good care usually makes in shifting clients from despair and a commitment to death to embracing life once again. Let’s not, as clinicians, embrace easing a government/state-sanctioned pathway to death.”
Some readers believe that these types of issues can’t be solved with a blanket approach, noting that each case is different. “Real life is always more complicated than academic discussions. Having served on a hospital ethics committee, I know that each case is unique,” one reader noted.
Another reader added, “I think all we can do as physicians is to let people decide for themselves and participate only if our conscience allows.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
TBI tied to increased mental health diagnoses, time to suicide
Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.
“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.
“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Largest, longest study to date
Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.
Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.
Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.
New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.
There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).
But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
Sharp differences in time to suicide
Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.
Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.
The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.
“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
Applicable to civilians?
“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.
“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”
However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.
“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.
The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.
“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.
“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Largest, longest study to date
Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.
Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.
Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.
New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.
There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).
But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
Sharp differences in time to suicide
Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.
Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.
The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.
“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
Applicable to civilians?
“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.
“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”
However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.
“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.
The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators also found that increases in new mental health diagnoses are significantly higher in soldiers with a history of TBI – in some cases, strikingly higher. For example, cases of substance use disorder rose by 100% among veterans with TBI compared to just 14.5% in those with no brain injury.
“We had had pieces of these findings for a long time but to be able to lay out this longitudinal story over time is the part that’s new and important to really switch the focus to people’s whole lives and things that happen over time, both psychological and physical,” lead author Lisa Brenner, PhD, director of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Rocky Mountain Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, Aurora, Colo., said in an interview.
“If we take that life-course view, it’s a very different way about thinking about conceptualizing exposures and conceptualizing risk and it’s a different way of thinking about treatment and prevention,” added Dr. Brenner, professor of physical medicine and rehabilitation, psychiatry, and neurology at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “I think that definitely applies to civilian populations.”
The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
Largest, longest study to date
Researchers have long suspected that TBI and a higher rate of new mental illness and a shorter time to suicide are all somehow linked. But this study examined all three components longitudinally, in what is thought to be the largest and longest study on the topic to date, including more than 860,000 people who were followed for up to a decade.
Investigators studied health data from the Substance Use and Psychological Injury Combat Study database on 860,892 U.S. Army soldiers who returned from deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan between 2008 and 2014 and were 18-24 years old at the end of that deployment. They then examined new mental health diagnoses and suicide trends over time.
Nearly 109,000 (12.6%) experienced a TBI during deployment, and 2,695 had died by suicide through the end of 2018.
New-onset diagnoses of anxiety, mood disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, alcohol use, and substance use disorder (SUD) after deployment were all more common in soldiers who experienced PTSD while serving compared with those with no history of TBI.
There was a 67.7% increase in mood disorders in participants with TBI compared with a 37.5% increase in those without TBI. The increase in new cases of alcohol use disorder was also greater in the TBI group (a 31.9% increase vs. a 10.3% increase).
But the sharpest difference was the increase in substance use disorder among those with TBI, which rose 100% compared with a 14.5% increase in solders with no history of TBI.
Sharp differences in time to suicide
Death by suicide was only slightly more common in those with TBI compared with those without (0.4% vs. 0.3%, respectively). But those with a brain injury committed suicide 21.3% sooner than did those without a head injury, after the researchers controlled for sex, age, race, ethnicity, and fiscal year of return from deployment.
Time to suicide was faster in those with a TBI and two or more new mental health diagnoses and fastest among those with TBI and a new SUD diagnosis, who took their own lives 62.8% faster than did those without a TBI.
The findings offer an important message to medical professionals in many different specialties, Dr. Brenner said.
“Folks in mental health probably have a lot of patients who have brain injury in their practice, and they don’t know it and that’s an important thing to know,” she said, adding that “neurologists should screen for depression and other mental health conditions and make sure those people have evidence-based treatments for those mental health conditions while they’re addressing the TBI-related symptoms.”
Applicable to civilians?
“The complex interplay between TBI, its potential effects on mental health, and risk of suicide remains a vexing focus of ongoing investigations and academic inquiry,” Ross Zafonte, DO, president of Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital Network and professor and chair of physical medicine and rehabilitation at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and colleagues, wrote in an accompanying editorial.
The study builds on earlier work, they added, and praised the study’s longitudinal design and large cohort as key to the findings. The data on increased rates of new-onset substance use disorder, which was also associated with a faster time to suicide in the TBI group, were of particular interest.
“In this work, Brenner and colleagues identified substance use disorder as a key factor in faster time to suicide for active-duty service members with a history of TBI compared with those without TBI and theorized that a multiple stress or exposure burden may enhance risk,” they wrote. “This theory is reasonable and has been postulated among individuals with medical sequelae linked to TBI.”
However, the authors caution against applying these findings in military veterans to civilians.
“While this work is critical in the military population, caution should be given to avoid direct generalization to other populations, such as athletes, for whom the linkage to suicidal ideation is less understood,” they wrote.
The study was funded by National Institute of Mental Health and Office of the Director at National Institutes of Health. Dr. Brenner has received personal fees from Wolters Kluwer, Rand, American Psychological Association, and Oxford University Press and serves as a consultant to sports leagues via her university affiliation. Dr. Zafonte reported receiving royalties from Springer/Demos; serving as a member of the editorial boards of Journal of Neurotrauma and Frontiers in Neurology and scientific advisory boards of Myomo, Nanodiagnostics, Onecare.ai, and Kisbee; and evaluating patients in the MGH Brain and Body-TRUST Program, which is funded by the National Football League Players Association.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Medications for opioid addiction significantly underutilized
Using data from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), investigators found that of the 2.5 million adults with OUD in that year, 35.6% received some kind of substance abuse treatment, but only 22.3% received recommended medications for the condition, such as methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone.
“More than 80,000 people are dying of a drug overdose involving an opioid every year, while safe and effective medicines to treat opioid use disorder are sitting on the shelf unused,” senior author Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), said in a statement. “This study adds to the growing evidence that telehealth services are an important strategy that could help us bridge this gap, supporting the delivery of safe, effective, and lifesaving care for people with opioid use disorder.”
The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
The study included 47,291 adults aged 18 years or older in the 2021 NSDUH, which provides nationally representative data of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population based on past-year OUD.
Men, people aged 35 years or older, urban residents, and non-Hispanic Whites were the most likely to receive medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). MOUD use was more common among those who received substance use treatment via telehealth, those with severe OUD, and people with annual incomes below $50,000.
Black people, women, unemployed individuals, those living in rural areas, and people with past-year cannabis use disorder were less likely to receive MOUD.
“It is not a matter of whether we should address health disparities and inequities that many racial/ethnic minority groups face when trying to access substance use treatment,” lead author Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, MPH, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a statement. “We must address these issues if we hope to reverse the trend of increasing drug overdose deaths.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Compton reported long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M Companies, and Pfizer outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Using data from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), investigators found that of the 2.5 million adults with OUD in that year, 35.6% received some kind of substance abuse treatment, but only 22.3% received recommended medications for the condition, such as methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone.
“More than 80,000 people are dying of a drug overdose involving an opioid every year, while safe and effective medicines to treat opioid use disorder are sitting on the shelf unused,” senior author Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), said in a statement. “This study adds to the growing evidence that telehealth services are an important strategy that could help us bridge this gap, supporting the delivery of safe, effective, and lifesaving care for people with opioid use disorder.”
The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
The study included 47,291 adults aged 18 years or older in the 2021 NSDUH, which provides nationally representative data of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population based on past-year OUD.
Men, people aged 35 years or older, urban residents, and non-Hispanic Whites were the most likely to receive medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). MOUD use was more common among those who received substance use treatment via telehealth, those with severe OUD, and people with annual incomes below $50,000.
Black people, women, unemployed individuals, those living in rural areas, and people with past-year cannabis use disorder were less likely to receive MOUD.
“It is not a matter of whether we should address health disparities and inequities that many racial/ethnic minority groups face when trying to access substance use treatment,” lead author Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, MPH, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a statement. “We must address these issues if we hope to reverse the trend of increasing drug overdose deaths.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Compton reported long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M Companies, and Pfizer outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Using data from the 2021 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), investigators found that of the 2.5 million adults with OUD in that year, 35.6% received some kind of substance abuse treatment, but only 22.3% received recommended medications for the condition, such as methadone, buprenorphine, or extended-release naltrexone.
“More than 80,000 people are dying of a drug overdose involving an opioid every year, while safe and effective medicines to treat opioid use disorder are sitting on the shelf unused,” senior author Wilson Compton, MD, MPE, deputy director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), said in a statement. “This study adds to the growing evidence that telehealth services are an important strategy that could help us bridge this gap, supporting the delivery of safe, effective, and lifesaving care for people with opioid use disorder.”
The findings were published online as a research letter in JAMA Network Open.
The study included 47,291 adults aged 18 years or older in the 2021 NSDUH, which provides nationally representative data of the U.S. civilian, noninstitutionalized population based on past-year OUD.
Men, people aged 35 years or older, urban residents, and non-Hispanic Whites were the most likely to receive medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD). MOUD use was more common among those who received substance use treatment via telehealth, those with severe OUD, and people with annual incomes below $50,000.
Black people, women, unemployed individuals, those living in rural areas, and people with past-year cannabis use disorder were less likely to receive MOUD.
“It is not a matter of whether we should address health disparities and inequities that many racial/ethnic minority groups face when trying to access substance use treatment,” lead author Christopher M. Jones, PharmD, MPH, DrPH, director of the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said in a statement. “We must address these issues if we hope to reverse the trend of increasing drug overdose deaths.”
The study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Compton reported long-term stock holdings in General Electric, 3M Companies, and Pfizer outside the submitted work.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM JAMA NETWORK OPEN