Commentary

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I don’t rightly remember when I first learned of restless legs syndrome (RLS). It was many decades ago, and I recognized that once in a while, I would be restless during sleep, tossing and turning, seeking a favorable sleeping position. I felt like I just needed to move my legs around; my gastrocnemii and hamstrings might cramp; and my torso skin might strangely “crawl” a bit, but then normal sleep would return. I never sought medical care for it and used no treatment, except moving my legs when indicated.

My trusty LLM (large language model), Bard, tells me that there are about 53,000 articles about RLS in English, of which, some 20,000 are in the primary source, peer reviewed literature. Count this as one more article. Will it make a difference? Read on and see.

For many centuries (since Sir Thomas Willis in 1672), the symptoms now grouped and categorized as RLS have been recognized and reported but were often dismissed as bizarre and unexplained. The name was applied in 1948 by Dr Karl-Axel Ekborn.

In the 1960s, in sleep labs, RLS became better studied and characterized.

Mayo Clinic describes RLS as “… compelling, unpleasant sensations in the legs or feet ... both sides of the body ... within the limb rather than on the skin ... crawling, creeping, pulling, throbbing, aching, itching, electric ... difficult to explain …” Not numbness, but a consistent desire to move the legs.

When I read about it many decades ago, I realized that I may have RLS. But then many months would pass with no recurrence, so I dismissed it as just another of those “symptoms of unknown origin” that my late friend Clifton Meador has written about so eloquently.

I am sure that a lot of people experience this, don’t understand it, and don’t consider it important enough to do anything about. Between 1% and 15% (a wide range) of Americans are believed to be affected by RLS. The cause is unknown, but it seems to run in families. It may be autosomal dominant, but no causative genes have been confirmed.
 

Treatment of RLS

Many pharmacologic and physical treatments have been tried with some success for some patients, but over time, these treatments have mostly failed.

We know how Big Pharma often operates. A company owns a drug, preferably under patent protection, but without an apparent profitable indication. They need to find a medical condition, ideally one with troublesome symptoms, that the drug might ameliorate to some degree. Armed with a plausible candidate symptom, the company embarks upon a campaign to find people who might want to take the drug. Mass communications, such as direct-to-consumer advertising, can identify large numbers of people who match to pretty much any symptoms, although many of these people never suspected they had a disease, much less a treatable one.

I figured long ago that RLS was just another of those nonspecific entities experienced by many people, making them good candidates for disease mongering.

In 2005, the marketing of GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK’s) dopamine agonist drug Requip (ropinirole) was approved by the FDA. GSK had already undertaken an intensive promotional campaign for Requip, issuing press releases, advertising to doctors in medical journals, and advertising directly to consumers. To increase general awareness of RLS, GSK’s campaign told consumers that a “new survey reveals that a common yet underrecognized disorder-restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night.” GSK was accused of “disease mongering,” trying to turn ordinary people into patients who needed specific drugs.

Within a year, sales of the drug had doubled, climbing from $165 million in 2005 to nearly $330 million in 2006. Soon, 4.4 million prescriptions were written annually for the drug, with sales reported to be nearly $491 million. However, the focus on RLS faded rapidly as the Requip television commercials were pulled from the airwaves following approval of generic ropinirole.

And Requip had competition. Boehringer Ingelheim manufactures pramipexole (brand name Mirapex) another dopamine agonist. Gabapentin enacarbil (marketed as Horizant by UCB Pharma) is also approved for RLS, and Pfizer’s pregabalin (brand name Lyrica) is used off-label to manage symptoms of RLS. Janssen Pharmaceuticals manufactures rotigotine, (brand name Neupro), a dopamine agonist delivered via a transdermal patch.

It is safe to say that RLS is a real clinical entity composed of clearly recognizable symptoms, with no cure and no ending, unless it is associated with iron-deficiency anemia. However, as a disease, it seems to lack etiology, pathology, pathogenesis, pathophysiology, diagnostic findings on physical examination, laboratory tests, or imaging, and any clear strategy for prevention.

Pharmacologic treatments include dopaminergic agents, benzodiazepines, opioids, anticonvulsants, alpha 2–adrenergic agonists and iron salts. Yes, you read that right; RLS is treated with a broad array of different drugs, which is usually a sign that nothing works very well. Some agents work for a while, but none seem to be the definitive solution.

Same for the physical interventions: sleep hygiene, exercise, hot or cold bathing, limb massage, vibratory or electrical stimulation of the feet, stopping caffeine before bedtime. Try everything and see if something works.
 

Taking the Sugar Challenge

Could the culprit be sugar?

Lacking clarity of scientific understanding of RLS or its treatment from an extensive clinical literature, after ascertaining that RLS is real, one might look for real-world evidence, including well-performed N-of-1 trials.

I am an antisugar guy. Read my prior Medscape columns. I practice what I preach, but sugar does taste good.

Early in November 2023, after a healthy, conservative dinner at home with some wine, I enjoyed a mini Dove bar for dessert. But I didn’t stop there.

Mini Dove bars contain 11 grams sugar. It was also just a few days after Halloween. Having had fewer trick-or-treaters than expected, we had leftovers. Snickers, Milky Ways, Twix mini bars, each with at least 20 grams of sugar.

I ate several of these not long before bedtime. Lo and behold, in the dark of that night, and continuing off and on for a few fitful hours, I had bad RLS. Shifting, tossing, turning, compulsively seeking a new sleeping position only to have to soon move again. Plus, I had repetitive leg cramps and that creepy-crawly skin sensation. An altogether unpleasant experience. Sound sleep eventually arrived, and there were no recurrences over subsequent weeks.

The classic way to determine whether a drug is causing a reaction, condition, or disease is to apply the challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge testing method.

Give the drug, the patient demonstrates the disease finding. Remove the drug, the problem disappears. Rinse and repeat three times. We pathologists first worked this out for drug-induced liver disease, such as steatosis, in the late 1960s. Blinding or double blinding in these N-of-1 situations would be nice but often not practical.

Siwert de Groot, in the Netherlands, published a very convincing use of this technique in 2023: Big-time sugar consumption for a week, then low intake of sugar for the following week, repeated three times on one patient.

Very elaborate RLS symptom reporting. I’m pretty convinced from my unintentional challenge and single dechallenge that my unusually high sugar intake resulted in RLS. I will not undergo a rechallenge, although it might be fun to binge on sucrose and see what happens.

If you are serious about identifying or treating RLS, I suggest that you incorporate the International Restless Legs Study Group Severity Rating Scale into your practice, and begin the systematic use of the dechallenge-rechallenge exclusion process for your patients with RLS. Start with sugar and see what happens. Keep records and let the world know what you discover. Be your own clinical investigator. Social media offers you abundant opportunity to share your results, whatever they may be.

How many millions of dollars would Big Pharma lose if patients with RLS just said no to sugar and it worked? Of course, humans being humans, many would probably prefer to continue to gorge on sugar, gain weight, develop diabetes, and then take medications to control their RLS symptoms. But patients ought to at least be given an informed choice.

I will be watching for your reports.

Dr. Lundberg had no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD: Hello. Thank you all for joining us today. I’m very excited to have some great guests to talk about what I consider an active controversy. I’m Stephen M. Strakowski. I’m a professor and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

Today we’re going to talk about cannabis. As all of you are aware, everyone’s talking about cannabis. We hear constantly on social media and in interviews, particularly with relevance to psychiatric disorders, that everyone should be thinking about using cannabis. That seems to be the common conversation.

Last week, I had a patient who said, “All my friends tell me I need to be on cannabis.” That was their solution to her problems. With that in mind, let me introduce our guests, who are both experts on this, to talk about the role of cannabis in psychiatric disorders today.

First, I want to welcome Dr. Leslie Hulvershorn. Dr. Hulvershorn is an associate professor and chair at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Dr. Christopher Hammond is an assistant professor and the director of the co-occurring disorders program at Johns Hopkins. Welcome!

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc: Thank you.

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD: Thank you.

Dr. Strakowski: Leslie, as I mentioned, many people are talking about how cannabis could be a good treatment for psychiatric disorders. Is that true?

Dr. Hulvershorn: If you look at what defines a good treatment, what you’re looking for is clinical trials, ideally randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

When we look at research related to cannabis, we see very few of those trials, and we see that the cannabis plant is actually quite complicated and there are many different compounds that come from it. So we need to look at all the different compounds.

If you think about THC, delta 9 or delta 8, depending on the version, that’s the active ingredient that we most often think about when we say “cannabis.” If you look at THC studies, there really is no evidence that I could find that it helps psychiatric disorders.

What we do find is an enormous literature, many hunDr.eds of studies, actually, that show that THC actually worsens or even brings on psychiatric disorders. There’s a separate conversation about other compounds within the cannabis plant, like CBD, cannabidiol, where there’s maybe a signal that certain anxiety disorders might be improved by a compound like that.

Certainly, rare forms of epilepsy have been found to be improved with that compound. It really depends on what you’re looking at within the cannabis plant, but if we’re thinking about THC, the answer really is no, this is not a helpful thing. In fact, it’s probably a harmful thing to be ingesting in terms of psychiatric disorders.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you, Leslie. Chris, what would you add to that? Do we know anything about the use of cannabis in any psychiatric condition?

Dr. Hammond: I definitely would echo what Leslie said. The popular opinion, that the media and the state legislatures have really, in many ways, put the cart before the horse — they speak about cannabis as a medication for the treatment of psychiatric conditions before we have sufficient evidence to say that it’s safe or effective for these conditions. Most of the evidence that we have, particularly in regard to the cannabinoid compound, delta 9, tetrahyDr.ocannabinol, or THC, suggests that that cannabinoid is associated with adverse mental health outcomes across different categories.

Dr. Strakowski: Our group, a long time ago, conducted a study looking at first episode of mania, and found that regular cannabis use increases the risk for subsequent manic episodes. I’m not aware of many other studies like that.

You referred, Chris, to the safety aspect. If you look at social media, the press, and the conversations where cannabis is talked about, there’s no risk, right? This is something anybody can use. There are no negative consequences. Is that true? I mean, is it really risk free?

Dr. Hammond: Research shows that that’s an inaccurate framing of the safety profile of cannabis. Again, as Leslie put it very well, cannabis is many different compounds. Using this catchall phrase of «cannabis» is not very helpful.

In regard to the main bioactive compounds of the cannabis plant, THC and cannabidiol, or CBD, what we know from studies of THC administration and from medications that have been designed to mimic THC and act on receptors that THC acts on is that those medications have clear side effects and adverse events in a percentage of patients who take them, particularly in regard to precipitating panic attacks, dysphoric episodes, and psychosis in some individuals.

Dr. Hulvershorn: I would add that it really depends on the age of the person that you’re talking about and when they’re first exposed to cannabis. If you’re talking about a person, say, under the age of 14 who uses cannabis, there’s a large amount of concern about the worsening of psychosis and mental health symptoms, but also cognitive features like memory.

There’s a very good study that was conducted in New Zealand that followed a large number of kids over time and showed significant decreases in working memory capacity for kids who used quite heavily.

Then you think about pregnant women. That’s very interesting literature, where people are finding that cannabis not only affects brain development but also a host of other systems in the body. For example, I think the risk for asthma is increased. If you look at the genes in the placenta that are affected, it has much to do with the immune system.

Women who are using cannabis during pregnancy are really exposing their fetus to a range of potential risks that we certainly don’t understand well enough, but there’s enough science that suggests this is really concerning.

If you take a step back and look at animal models, even with things like CBD products, which, again, everybody seems to be buying and they’re viewed as very safe — it’s almost hard to find things without CBD these days.

There we find, for example, in developing rats that testicular development seems to be affected with high doses of CBD. There’s just a huge array of effects, even outside of the psychiatric world, that make me very nervous about anyone using, especially a pregnant woman or a young person.

Then there’s a whole separate literature on adults. It’s hard to find studies that suggest this is a great idea. You’re going to find on the mental health side of things, and the cognitive side of things, many effects as well.

I, personally, am agnostic one way or the other. If cannabis turns out to be helpful, great. We love things that are helpful in medicine. We don’t really care where they come from. I’m not biased politically one way or the other. It’s just when you look at the totality of the literature, it’s hard to feel excited about people using cannabis at any age.

Dr. Hammond: It’s difficult to interpret the literature because of some biases there. It speaks to the importance of thoughtful research being done in this space that takes a neutral approach to assessing cannabis and looking for evidence of both potential benefit and potential harm.

The other piece that I think is of value that builds off what Leslie mentioned is the effects of cannabis and THC. The risk for harm appears to be greater in pregnant women and in young people. For adults, I think, we’re also still trying to understand what the effects are.

The other way of parsing out effects and thinking about them is in terms of the acute effects and the acute response in the moment right after one ingests cannabis vs the long-term effects.

After acute ingestion of cannabis, it can precipitate a psychotic episode, dysphoria or severe depressive symptoms, or severe anxiety, and can cause one to be disoriented, have delayed response time, and affect the ability to Dr.ive. In that capacity, it is related to a higher risk for motor vehicle crashes.

Dr. Strakowski: That’s very interesting. In my practice, and maybe it’s atypical, but half to two thirds of my patients, particularly the younger ones, are using cannabis in some form or another. In my experience, if they’re under 21, they’re more likely to use cannabis than alcohol.

What do we tell our patients? Is there a safe level of use? Do we say to never touch it? How do we manage the social pressure and environment that our patients have to live in?

Dr. Hulvershorn: I think about what we call motivational interviewing and the substance use disorder field, which is a style of interacting with someone that’s very neutral to discuss the pros and the cons. In my practice, people are usually coming to us because of problems related to their substance use.

Not everyone is experiencing those, but for those people, it’s a pretty easy discussion. It sounds like you’re getting into trouble. Your athletic performance is suffering. Your scholastic performance is suffering.

You walk them toward understanding that, wait a minute, if I smoked less weed or no weed, I would probably be doing better in this or that domain of my life. That seems to be the most helpful thing, by allowing them to come to that conclusion.

I think it is a more difficult conversation for people who don’t identify any problems related to their use. What is the right answer? Again, I just go back to saying, “Is this good for you? It’s hard to find the literature that suggests that. Is it neutral for you? Maybe, for some people. Is it harmful for some people? Absolutely.”

I think, for me, the most impactful studies have been those that showed for certain people with certain genetic makeup, cannabis is an absolutely terrible idea. Their risk for psychosis development and things like that are so high. For other people, they could smoke weed all day and never have a problem, based on their genetics — maybe. We don’t know. It’s not like we’re doing blood tests to figure out who you are.

The safest advice, I think, is no use. That’s never going to be bad advice.

Dr. Hammond: I mostly agree with Leslie on this point but feel very, very strongly that — in this era, where in the context of popular media, celebrities and other people are stating that cannabis is good and should be put in everything — clinical providers, especially pediatric providers, need to be extremely grounded in the science, and not let popular media sway our approach and strategy for working with these young people.

There’s two decades worth of data from longitudinal studies that have followed individuals from birth or from preadolescence into their thirties and forties, that show us that, for this association between cannabis use and later adverse mental health outcomes, there is a dose effect there.

The earlier an individual starts using, the more frequent they use, and more persistent their use is over time, those individuals have poorer mental health outcomes compared with individuals who choose to abstain or individuals who use just a few times and stop.

There’s also a signal for higher-THC-potency products being associated with poorer mental health outcomes, particularly when used during adolescence.

I apply a motivational interviewing approach as well to disseminate this information to both the young people and their parents about the risks, and to communicate what the data clearly show in regard to using THC-based cannabinoid products, which is that we don’t have evidence that shows that any use is healthy to the developing brain.

There’s a large amount of evidence that suggests it’s harmful to the developing brain, so the recommendation is not to use, to delay the onset of use, if you want to use, until adulthood. Many youth choose to use. For those young people, we meet them where they’re at and try to work with them on cutting down.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you both. There’s an interesting effort in different states, with lobbying by celebrities and legislators pushing insurance companies to fund cannabis use broadly, including in a number of psychiatric indications, with no FDA approval at this point. Do you support that? Is that a good idea?

Dr. Hammond: Absolutely not.

Dr. Strakowski: Thank you.

Dr. Hammond: I think that’s a very important statement to make. For the medical and healthcare profession to stand strong related to states requiring insurance companies to cover medical cannabis really opens the door to lawsuits that would force insurance companies to cover other undertested bioactive chemicals and health supplements.

There are insufficient safety data for medical cannabis for FDA approval for any condition right now. The FDA has approved cannabinoid-based medications. Those cannabinoid-based medications have really undergone rigorous safety and efficacy testing, and have been approved for very narrow indications, none of which are psychiatric conditions.

They’ve been approved for chemotherapy-associated nausea and vomiting, treatment-resistant seizures related to two rare seizure disorders that emerge during childhood, and related to tuberous sclerosis, and one related to treating multiple sclerosis–associated spasticity and central neuropathic pain.

Dr. Hulvershorn: Steve, I think it’s important for listeners to be aware that there is a process in place for any therapeutic to become tested and reviewed. We see an industry that stands to make an enormous amount of money, and that is really the motivation for this industry.

These are not folks who are, out of the kindness of their heart, just hoping for better treatments for people. There are many ways you could channel that desire that does not include cannabis making money.

It’s really a profit-motivated industry. They’re very effective at lobbying. The public, unfortunately, has been sort of manipulated by this industry to believe that these are healthy, safe, and natural just because they grow in the ground.

Unfortunately, that’s really the issue. I think people just need to keep that in mind. Someone stands to make a large amount of money off of this. This is a very calculated, strategic approach that goes state by state but is nationally organized, and is potentially, like Chris says, for many reasons, really harmful.

I see it as sort of a bullying approach. Like if your Dr.ug works, Medicaid will pay for it. Medicaid in each state will review the studies. The FDA obviously leads the way. To cut the line without the research is really not helpful — circumventing the process that’s been in place for a long time and works well.

Dr. Hammond: Yes, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Dr. Strakowski: I was going to add the same, that it’s potentially dangerous. Thank you both, Dr.s Hulvershorn and Hammond, for a really good, lively discussion. I know we could talk for a very long time about this situation.

I do think it’s clear for listeners, most of whom are practitioners, that at this point in time, there just really does not seem to be strong evidence for the use of cannabis-based products for any psychiatric condition.

I do think we have to approach the people we’re working with around their psychiatric conditions to manage use and abuse wisely, like we would with any other substance. I appreciate everyone who’s tuned in today to watch us. I hope this is useful for your practice. Thank you.

Stephen M. Strakowski, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion
• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Roche; Procter & Gamble; Novartis; Sunovion; Oxford University Press

Leslie A. Hulvershorn, MD, MSc, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Greenwich Biosciences, educational grant for Summit

Christopher J. Hammond, MD, PhD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

• Received research grant from National Institutes of Health Grants; Bench to Bench Award; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; Doris Duke.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

The first time I saw a patient in the hospital was in 2004, twenty years ago, when I was a third-year med student. I mean, look at that guy. The things I could tell him.

Since that time, I have spent countless hours in the hospital as a resident, a renal fellow, and finally as an attending. And I’m sure many of you in the medical community feel the same thing I do, which is that patients are much more complicated now than they used to be. I’ll listen to an intern present a new case on rounds and she’ll have an assessment and plan that encompasses a dozen individual medical problems. Sometimes I have to literally be like, “Wait, why is this patient here again?”

But until now, I had no data to convince myself that this feeling was real — that hospitalized patients are getting more and more complicated, or that they only seem more complicated because I’m getting older. Maybe I was better able to keep track of things when I was an intern rather than now as an attending, spending just a couple months of the year in the hospital. I mean, after all, if patients were getting more complicated, surely hospitals would know this and allocate more resources to patient care, right?

Right?

It’s not an illusion. At least not according to this paper, Population-Based Trends in Complexity of Hospital Inpatients, appearing in JAMA Internal Medicine, which examines about 15 years of inpatient hospital admissions in British Columbia.

I like Canada for this study for two reasons: First, their electronic health record system is province-wide, so they don’t have issues of getting data from hospital A vs hospital B. All the data are there — in this case, more than 3 million nonelective hospital admissions from British Columbia. Second, there is universal healthcare. We don’t have to worry about insurance companies changing, or the start of a new program like the Affordable Care Act. It’s just a cleaner set-up.

Of course, complexity is hard to define, and the authors here decide to look at a variety of metrics I think we can agree are tied into complexity. These include things like patient age, comorbidities, medications, frequency of hospitalization, and so on. They also looked at outcomes associated with hospitalization: Did the patient require the ICU? Did they survive? Were they readmitted?

And the tale of the tape is as clear as that British Columbian air: Over the past 15 years, your average hospitalized patient is about 3 years older, is twice as likely to have kidney disease, 70% more likely to have diabetes, is on more medications (particularly anticoagulants), and is much more likely to be admitted through the emergency room. They’ve also spent more time in the hospital in the past year.

Given the increased complexity, you might expect that the outcomes for these patients are worse than years ago, but the data do not bear that out. In fact, inpatient mortality is lower now than it was 15 years ago, although 30-day postdischarge mortality is higher. Put those together and it turns out that death rates are pretty stable: 9% of people admitted for nonelective reasons to the hospital will die within 30 days. It’s just that nowadays, we tend to discharge them before that happens.

Why are our patients getting more complex? Some of it is demographics; the population is aging, after all. Some of it relates to the increasing burden of comorbidities like diabetes and kidney disease, which are associated with the obesity epidemic. But in some ways, we’re a victim of our own success. We have the ability to keep people alive today who would not have survived 15 years ago. We have better treatments for metastatic cancer, less-invasive therapies for heart disease, better protocolized ICU care.

Given all that, does it make any sense that many of our hospitals are at skeleton-crew staffing levels? That hospitalists report taking care of more patients than they ever have before?

There’s been so much talk about burnout in the health professions lately. Maybe something people need to start acknowledging — particularly those who haven’t practiced on the front lines for a decade or two — is that the job is, quite simply, harder now. As patients become more complex, we need more resources, human and otherwise, to care for them.

F. Perry Wilson, MD, MSCE, is an associate professor of medicine and public health and director of Yale’s Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator. His science communication work can be found in the Huffington Post, on NPR, and here on Medscape. He tweets @fperrywilson and his book, How Medicine Works and When It Doesn’t, is available now. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in JAMA Network Open on the subject of whether statin therapy may be able to offset some of the excess risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among women taking menopausal hormone therapy.

It’s an important issue because we know that menopausal hormone therapy, especially oral therapy, is linked to an excess risk for VTE, approximately doubling of risk in the randomized clinical trials. There is also emerging evidence from some randomized trials, such as the Jupiter trial, that step therapy may be linked to a reduction in risk. This may be related to anti-inflammatory or antithrombotic effects of statin therapy.

The authors made use of a very large administrative claims database, Optum Health, to look at more than 15 million annual members. They were able to identify 2000 women with a diagnostic code for VTE treatment. The women were between ages 50 and 64 years, and they were compared with 200,000 controls without VTE, matched in 10-to-1 fashion.

About 50% of the women were taking oral hormone therapy, and about 50% took non-oral transdermal or other non-oral formulations of hormone therapy. The odds ratio for VTE was 1.53 among the women who did not also have prescription records for statin therapy. They were able to look at prescribed prescriptions for both the hormone therapy and the statins. Among the women prescribed hormone therapy and also low- to intermediate-dose statins, the odds ratio was 1.29. So that was quite a mitigation of the elevated risk. Among the women taking high-intensity statins, the odds ratio was 1.06, and there was no significant elevation.

We do need more data and more research on this question. One approach would be a meta-analysis of all of the existing randomized trials of hormone therapy in recent years wherein there was increased uptake of statin therapy to look at this question not only for VTE but also for coronary heart disease, stroke, and other CVD outcomes to see whether statin therapy is associated with some attenuation of the excess risk. We also need a targeted randomized trial of statins vs placebo among women who have clear indications for hormone therapy but may be at some increased risk for VTE. That type of trial would be extremely helpful.

In the interim, there are ways to minimize risk for VTE among women who are clear candidates for menopausal hormone therapy, especially among women at increased risk for VTE. These include choosing a transdermal rather than an oral formulation of hormone therapy and using lower doses of hormone therapy. Also, women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy and also for statins, it’s obvious that statins could be co-prescribed. Even among women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy but only intermediate borderline candidates for statin therapy, the prescription of statins might be considered in that clinical scenario to try to mitigate that excess risk for VTE.

JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from: Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in JAMA Network Open on the subject of whether statin therapy may be able to offset some of the excess risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among women taking menopausal hormone therapy.

It’s an important issue because we know that menopausal hormone therapy, especially oral therapy, is linked to an excess risk for VTE, approximately doubling of risk in the randomized clinical trials. There is also emerging evidence from some randomized trials, such as the Jupiter trial, that step therapy may be linked to a reduction in risk. This may be related to anti-inflammatory or antithrombotic effects of statin therapy.

The authors made use of a very large administrative claims database, Optum Health, to look at more than 15 million annual members. They were able to identify 2000 women with a diagnostic code for VTE treatment. The women were between ages 50 and 64 years, and they were compared with 200,000 controls without VTE, matched in 10-to-1 fashion.

About 50% of the women were taking oral hormone therapy, and about 50% took non-oral transdermal or other non-oral formulations of hormone therapy. The odds ratio for VTE was 1.53 among the women who did not also have prescription records for statin therapy. They were able to look at prescribed prescriptions for both the hormone therapy and the statins. Among the women prescribed hormone therapy and also low- to intermediate-dose statins, the odds ratio was 1.29. So that was quite a mitigation of the elevated risk. Among the women taking high-intensity statins, the odds ratio was 1.06, and there was no significant elevation.

We do need more data and more research on this question. One approach would be a meta-analysis of all of the existing randomized trials of hormone therapy in recent years wherein there was increased uptake of statin therapy to look at this question not only for VTE but also for coronary heart disease, stroke, and other CVD outcomes to see whether statin therapy is associated with some attenuation of the excess risk. We also need a targeted randomized trial of statins vs placebo among women who have clear indications for hormone therapy but may be at some increased risk for VTE. That type of trial would be extremely helpful.

In the interim, there are ways to minimize risk for VTE among women who are clear candidates for menopausal hormone therapy, especially among women at increased risk for VTE. These include choosing a transdermal rather than an oral formulation of hormone therapy and using lower doses of hormone therapy. Also, women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy and also for statins, it’s obvious that statins could be co-prescribed. Even among women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy but only intermediate borderline candidates for statin therapy, the prescription of statins might be considered in that clinical scenario to try to mitigate that excess risk for VTE.

JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from: Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. I’d like to talk with you about a recent report in JAMA Network Open on the subject of whether statin therapy may be able to offset some of the excess risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) among women taking menopausal hormone therapy.

It’s an important issue because we know that menopausal hormone therapy, especially oral therapy, is linked to an excess risk for VTE, approximately doubling of risk in the randomized clinical trials. There is also emerging evidence from some randomized trials, such as the Jupiter trial, that step therapy may be linked to a reduction in risk. This may be related to anti-inflammatory or antithrombotic effects of statin therapy.

The authors made use of a very large administrative claims database, Optum Health, to look at more than 15 million annual members. They were able to identify 2000 women with a diagnostic code for VTE treatment. The women were between ages 50 and 64 years, and they were compared with 200,000 controls without VTE, matched in 10-to-1 fashion.

About 50% of the women were taking oral hormone therapy, and about 50% took non-oral transdermal or other non-oral formulations of hormone therapy. The odds ratio for VTE was 1.53 among the women who did not also have prescription records for statin therapy. They were able to look at prescribed prescriptions for both the hormone therapy and the statins. Among the women prescribed hormone therapy and also low- to intermediate-dose statins, the odds ratio was 1.29. So that was quite a mitigation of the elevated risk. Among the women taking high-intensity statins, the odds ratio was 1.06, and there was no significant elevation.

We do need more data and more research on this question. One approach would be a meta-analysis of all of the existing randomized trials of hormone therapy in recent years wherein there was increased uptake of statin therapy to look at this question not only for VTE but also for coronary heart disease, stroke, and other CVD outcomes to see whether statin therapy is associated with some attenuation of the excess risk. We also need a targeted randomized trial of statins vs placebo among women who have clear indications for hormone therapy but may be at some increased risk for VTE. That type of trial would be extremely helpful.

In the interim, there are ways to minimize risk for VTE among women who are clear candidates for menopausal hormone therapy, especially among women at increased risk for VTE. These include choosing a transdermal rather than an oral formulation of hormone therapy and using lower doses of hormone therapy. Also, women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy and also for statins, it’s obvious that statins could be co-prescribed. Even among women who are clear candidates for hormone therapy but only intermediate borderline candidates for statin therapy, the prescription of statins might be considered in that clinical scenario to try to mitigate that excess risk for VTE.

JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Received study pill donation and infrastructure support from: Mars Symbioscience (for the COSMOS trial).

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

When it comes to selecting medical treatments for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), patients and practitioners alike want to know, “What works?” The ideal AGA treatment is one that meets 4 criteria: highly effective, safe, affordable, and easy to use. To date, there is no known treatment for AGA that meets all these criteria. Some therapies are more effective than others, but there are no treatments at present that are able to completely and permanently reverse the condition. Some treatments are safer, some are less expensive, and some are easier to use than others. In the end, the treatment that the patient chooses is influenced not only by its known effectiveness but also by the value that the patient places on the other 3 categories—safety, affordability, and ease of use. Therefore, shared decision-making between patient and practitioner is central to the selection of specific AGA treatments.

Effectiveness: Some Treatments Work Better Than Others

Of the nearly 2 dozen medical treatments for AGA, some have been found to be more effective than others. Whether a given treatment should be considered a bona fide AGA therapy—and then whether to position it as a first-line, second-line, or third-line agent—depends on the answers to 3 fundamental questions:

1. Does the treatment truly help patients with AGA?
2. How effective is this treatment?
3. How safe is it?

Does the Treatment Truly Help Patients?—Surprisingly, it is not always straightforward to confirm that a given treatment helps patients with AGA. Does oral finasteride help female AGA? Yes and no: Finasteride 1 mg is ineffective in the treatment of female AGA, but higher doses such as 2.5 or 5 mg likely have benefit.^1,2 Does topical minoxidil help AGA? Yes and no: Minoxidil 5% is ineffective in the treatment of a male with Hamilton-Norwood stage VII AGA but often is helpful in earlier stages of the condition.

One of the best ways to determine if a treatment really helps AGA is to evaluate how it performs in the setting of a well-conducted, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. These types of clinical trials have been performed for many known AGA treatments and give us some of the best evidence that a treatment truly works. The AGA treatments with the highest-quality evidence (level 1) are topical minoxidil, oral finasteride, and oral dutasteride for male AGA and topical minoxidil for female AGA.

How Effective Is This Treatment?—Patients are particularly interested to know whether a given treatment has the potential to notably restore hair density. It is one thing to know that use of the treatment might slightly improve hair density and another to know that it could potentially lead to dramatic improvement. In addition, patients want to know whether a specific treatment they are considering is more (or less) likely to improve their hair density compared to another treatment.

Advanced statistical methods such as the network meta-analysis are increasingly being used to understand how individual treatments from different studies compare. Two recent studies have provided us with powerful data on the relative efficacy of minoxidil and 5α-reductase inhibitors in the treatment of both male and female AGA.^2,3 A 2022 network meta-analysis of male AGA ranked treatment efficacy from most to least effective: oral dutasteride 0.5 mg, oral finasteride 5 mg, oral minoxidil 5 mg, oral finasteride 1 mg, and topical minoxidil 5%.³ Similarly, a 2023 network meta-analysis of female AGA ranked treatment efficacy from most to least effective: oral 5 mg finasteride, minoxidil solution 5% twice daily, oral minoxidil 1 mg, and minoxidil foam 5% once daily.² We are not yet able to rank all known treatments for AGA.

Things We Tend to Ignore: Quality of Data, Long-term Results, Nonresponders, and Study Populations—There are a few caveats for anyone treating AGA. First, the quality of published AGA studies is highly variable and many are of low quality. The highest-quality evidence (level 1) for male AGA comes from studies of minoxidil solution/foam 5% twice daily, oral finasteride 1 mg, and oral dutasteride 0.5 mg. For female AGA, the highest-quality evidence is for topical minoxidil—either 5% foam once daily or 2% solution twice daily. Lower-quality studies limit conclusions and the ability to properly compare treatments.

Second, long-term data are nonexistent for most of our AGA treatments. The exceptions include finasteride, dutasteride, and topical minoxidil, which have reasonably adequate long-term studies.^4-6 However, most other treatments have been evaluated only through short-term studies. It is tempting to assume that results from a 24-week study can be used to infer how a patient might respond when using the same treatment over the course of many decades; however, making these assumptions would be unwise.

Third, most AGA treatments help improve hair density in only a proportion of patients who decide to use the given treatment. There usually is one subgroup of patients for whom the treatment does not seem to help much at all and one subgroup for whom the treatment halts further hair loss but does not regrow hair. For example, in the case of finasteride treatment of male AGA, approximately 10% of patients do not seem to respond to treatment at all, and another 50% seem to be able to halt further loss but never achieve hair regrowth.⁷ In an analysis of 12 studies with 3927 male patients, Mella et al⁸ showed that 5.6 patients needed to be treated short term and 3.4 patients needed to be treated long term for 1 patient to perceive an improvement in the hair. It is clear that many males who use finasteride will not see evidence of hair regrowth. This same general concept applies for all available treatments and is important to remember if a patient with AGA decides to start 2 new treatments simultaneously. Consider the 34-year-old man who starts oral minoxidil and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for AGA. At his follow-up appointment 9 months later, the patient reports improved hair density and wants to know what contributed to the improvement: the oral minoxidil, the PRP, or both? Many practitioners would believe that both treatments likely provided some degree of benefit—but in reality, that represents a flaw in logic. If 2 hair loss treatments are started at exactly the same time, it is impossible to know the relative benefit of each treatment and whether one might not be helping at all. Combination therapies are still common in my practice and highly encouraged, but my personal preference is to stagger start dates whenever possible so I can determine each treatment’s contribution to the patient’s final outcome.

Finally, when evaluating what works for AGA, we need to define the specific patient subpopulation, as the available data are less robust for some patient groups than others. We have limited data in children and adolescents with AGA, as well as limited comparative data across different racial backgrounds, body mass indices, and underlying health issues. For example, data on the most effective strategies to treat female AGA in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome, premature menopause, and other endocrine disorders are lacking.

Which Treatments Also Have Good Safety?—The treatment that a patient ultimately selects also depends on its actual or perceived safety. Patients have vastly different levels of risk tolerance. Some patients would much rather start a less effective treatment if they believe that the chances of experiencing treatment-related adverse effects would be lower. In general, topical and injectable treatments tend to have fewer adverse effects than oral therapies. Long-term safety data generally are lacking for many hair-loss therapies. A limited number of studies of topical minoxidil include data up to 5 years,⁴ and some studies of oral finasteride and oral dutasteride include patients who used these medications for up to 10 years.^5,6

So Then, What Works?

The Table shows treatments for AGA and how I prioritize starting them in my own clinic. First-line treatment options often include those with level 1 evidence but also may include those with less-robust evidence plus a good history (over many years) of safety, affordability, ease of use, and effectiveness (eg, spironolactone and finasteride for female-pattern hair loss).

• Male AGA: I consider topical minoxidil, oral finasteride, and oral dutasteride as first-line agents, and low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and topical finasteride as second-line agents. Only topical minoxidil and oral finasteride are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for AGA in males; laser devices are FDA cleared.

• Premenopausal females with AGA: I use topical minoxidil and spironolactone as first-line agents. Low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and oral contraceptives are helpful second-line agents. Only topical minoxidil is FDA approved in women. I consider all treatments, with the exception of low-level laser, to be contraindicated in pregnancy.

• Postmenopausal females with AGA: I consider topical minoxidil, spironolactone, and oral finasteride as first-line agents. Low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and oral dutasteride are helpful second-line agents.

When choosing an initial treatment plan, I generally will start with one or more first-line options. I will then add or replace with remaining first-line options or a second-line option after 6 to 12 months depending on how well the patient responds to the first-line options. Patients who do not wish to use first-line options or have contraindications begin with second-line options. Third-line options are best reserved for patients who do not respond to or do not wish to use first- and second-line options.

Experts differ in opinion as to what constitutes a first-line treatment option and what constitutes a second- or third-line option. For example, some increasingly consider oral minoxidil to be a first-line option for AGA.⁹ In my opinion, the lack of high-quality comparative, randomized, controlled trials and long-term safety data keep oral minoxidil reserved as a respectable second-line option. Similarly, some experts reserve oral dutasteride as a second-line option for AGA.¹⁰ In my opinion, the data now are of the highest-quality evidence (level 1)⁹ to support placing oral dutasteride in the tier of first-line treatments.

Shared decision-making using an evidence-based approach is ultimately what connects patients with treatment plans that offer a good chance of helping to improve hair loss.

When it comes to selecting medical treatments for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), patients and practitioners alike want to know, “What works?” The ideal AGA treatment is one that meets 4 criteria: highly effective, safe, affordable, and easy to use. To date, there is no known treatment for AGA that meets all these criteria. Some therapies are more effective than others, but there are no treatments at present that are able to completely and permanently reverse the condition. Some treatments are safer, some are less expensive, and some are easier to use than others. In the end, the treatment that the patient chooses is influenced not only by its known effectiveness but also by the value that the patient places on the other 3 categories—safety, affordability, and ease of use. Therefore, shared decision-making between patient and practitioner is central to the selection of specific AGA treatments.

Effectiveness: Some Treatments Work Better Than Others

Of the nearly 2 dozen medical treatments for AGA, some have been found to be more effective than others. Whether a given treatment should be considered a bona fide AGA therapy—and then whether to position it as a first-line, second-line, or third-line agent—depends on the answers to 3 fundamental questions:

1. Does the treatment truly help patients with AGA?
2. How effective is this treatment?
3. How safe is it?

Does the Treatment Truly Help Patients?—Surprisingly, it is not always straightforward to confirm that a given treatment helps patients with AGA. Does oral finasteride help female AGA? Yes and no: Finasteride 1 mg is ineffective in the treatment of female AGA, but higher doses such as 2.5 or 5 mg likely have benefit.^1,2 Does topical minoxidil help AGA? Yes and no: Minoxidil 5% is ineffective in the treatment of a male with Hamilton-Norwood stage VII AGA but often is helpful in earlier stages of the condition.

One of the best ways to determine if a treatment really helps AGA is to evaluate how it performs in the setting of a well-conducted, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. These types of clinical trials have been performed for many known AGA treatments and give us some of the best evidence that a treatment truly works. The AGA treatments with the highest-quality evidence (level 1) are topical minoxidil, oral finasteride, and oral dutasteride for male AGA and topical minoxidil for female AGA.

How Effective Is This Treatment?—Patients are particularly interested to know whether a given treatment has the potential to notably restore hair density. It is one thing to know that use of the treatment might slightly improve hair density and another to know that it could potentially lead to dramatic improvement. In addition, patients want to know whether a specific treatment they are considering is more (or less) likely to improve their hair density compared to another treatment.

Advanced statistical methods such as the network meta-analysis are increasingly being used to understand how individual treatments from different studies compare. Two recent studies have provided us with powerful data on the relative efficacy of minoxidil and 5α-reductase inhibitors in the treatment of both male and female AGA.^2,3 A 2022 network meta-analysis of male AGA ranked treatment efficacy from most to least effective: oral dutasteride 0.5 mg, oral finasteride 5 mg, oral minoxidil 5 mg, oral finasteride 1 mg, and topical minoxidil 5%.³ Similarly, a 2023 network meta-analysis of female AGA ranked treatment efficacy from most to least effective: oral 5 mg finasteride, minoxidil solution 5% twice daily, oral minoxidil 1 mg, and minoxidil foam 5% once daily.² We are not yet able to rank all known treatments for AGA.

Things We Tend to Ignore: Quality of Data, Long-term Results, Nonresponders, and Study Populations—There are a few caveats for anyone treating AGA. First, the quality of published AGA studies is highly variable and many are of low quality. The highest-quality evidence (level 1) for male AGA comes from studies of minoxidil solution/foam 5% twice daily, oral finasteride 1 mg, and oral dutasteride 0.5 mg. For female AGA, the highest-quality evidence is for topical minoxidil—either 5% foam once daily or 2% solution twice daily. Lower-quality studies limit conclusions and the ability to properly compare treatments.

Second, long-term data are nonexistent for most of our AGA treatments. The exceptions include finasteride, dutasteride, and topical minoxidil, which have reasonably adequate long-term studies.^4-6 However, most other treatments have been evaluated only through short-term studies. It is tempting to assume that results from a 24-week study can be used to infer how a patient might respond when using the same treatment over the course of many decades; however, making these assumptions would be unwise.

Third, most AGA treatments help improve hair density in only a proportion of patients who decide to use the given treatment. There usually is one subgroup of patients for whom the treatment does not seem to help much at all and one subgroup for whom the treatment halts further hair loss but does not regrow hair. For example, in the case of finasteride treatment of male AGA, approximately 10% of patients do not seem to respond to treatment at all, and another 50% seem to be able to halt further loss but never achieve hair regrowth.⁷ In an analysis of 12 studies with 3927 male patients, Mella et al⁸ showed that 5.6 patients needed to be treated short term and 3.4 patients needed to be treated long term for 1 patient to perceive an improvement in the hair. It is clear that many males who use finasteride will not see evidence of hair regrowth. This same general concept applies for all available treatments and is important to remember if a patient with AGA decides to start 2 new treatments simultaneously. Consider the 34-year-old man who starts oral minoxidil and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for AGA. At his follow-up appointment 9 months later, the patient reports improved hair density and wants to know what contributed to the improvement: the oral minoxidil, the PRP, or both? Many practitioners would believe that both treatments likely provided some degree of benefit—but in reality, that represents a flaw in logic. If 2 hair loss treatments are started at exactly the same time, it is impossible to know the relative benefit of each treatment and whether one might not be helping at all. Combination therapies are still common in my practice and highly encouraged, but my personal preference is to stagger start dates whenever possible so I can determine each treatment’s contribution to the patient’s final outcome.

Finally, when evaluating what works for AGA, we need to define the specific patient subpopulation, as the available data are less robust for some patient groups than others. We have limited data in children and adolescents with AGA, as well as limited comparative data across different racial backgrounds, body mass indices, and underlying health issues. For example, data on the most effective strategies to treat female AGA in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome, premature menopause, and other endocrine disorders are lacking.

Which Treatments Also Have Good Safety?—The treatment that a patient ultimately selects also depends on its actual or perceived safety. Patients have vastly different levels of risk tolerance. Some patients would much rather start a less effective treatment if they believe that the chances of experiencing treatment-related adverse effects would be lower. In general, topical and injectable treatments tend to have fewer adverse effects than oral therapies. Long-term safety data generally are lacking for many hair-loss therapies. A limited number of studies of topical minoxidil include data up to 5 years,⁴ and some studies of oral finasteride and oral dutasteride include patients who used these medications for up to 10 years.^5,6

So Then, What Works?

The Table shows treatments for AGA and how I prioritize starting them in my own clinic. First-line treatment options often include those with level 1 evidence but also may include those with less-robust evidence plus a good history (over many years) of safety, affordability, ease of use, and effectiveness (eg, spironolactone and finasteride for female-pattern hair loss).

• Male AGA: I consider topical minoxidil, oral finasteride, and oral dutasteride as first-line agents, and low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and topical finasteride as second-line agents. Only topical minoxidil and oral finasteride are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for AGA in males; laser devices are FDA cleared.

• Premenopausal females with AGA: I use topical minoxidil and spironolactone as first-line agents. Low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and oral contraceptives are helpful second-line agents. Only topical minoxidil is FDA approved in women. I consider all treatments, with the exception of low-level laser, to be contraindicated in pregnancy.

• Postmenopausal females with AGA: I consider topical minoxidil, spironolactone, and oral finasteride as first-line agents. Low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and oral dutasteride are helpful second-line agents.

When choosing an initial treatment plan, I generally will start with one or more first-line options. I will then add or replace with remaining first-line options or a second-line option after 6 to 12 months depending on how well the patient responds to the first-line options. Patients who do not wish to use first-line options or have contraindications begin with second-line options. Third-line options are best reserved for patients who do not respond to or do not wish to use first- and second-line options.

Experts differ in opinion as to what constitutes a first-line treatment option and what constitutes a second- or third-line option. For example, some increasingly consider oral minoxidil to be a first-line option for AGA.⁹ In my opinion, the lack of high-quality comparative, randomized, controlled trials and long-term safety data keep oral minoxidil reserved as a respectable second-line option. Similarly, some experts reserve oral dutasteride as a second-line option for AGA.¹⁰ In my opinion, the data now are of the highest-quality evidence (level 1)⁹ to support placing oral dutasteride in the tier of first-line treatments.

Shared decision-making using an evidence-based approach is ultimately what connects patients with treatment plans that offer a good chance of helping to improve hair loss.

When it comes to selecting medical treatments for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), patients and practitioners alike want to know, “What works?” The ideal AGA treatment is one that meets 4 criteria: highly effective, safe, affordable, and easy to use. To date, there is no known treatment for AGA that meets all these criteria. Some therapies are more effective than others, but there are no treatments at present that are able to completely and permanently reverse the condition. Some treatments are safer, some are less expensive, and some are easier to use than others. In the end, the treatment that the patient chooses is influenced not only by its known effectiveness but also by the value that the patient places on the other 3 categories—safety, affordability, and ease of use. Therefore, shared decision-making between patient and practitioner is central to the selection of specific AGA treatments.

Effectiveness: Some Treatments Work Better Than Others

Of the nearly 2 dozen medical treatments for AGA, some have been found to be more effective than others. Whether a given treatment should be considered a bona fide AGA therapy—and then whether to position it as a first-line, second-line, or third-line agent—depends on the answers to 3 fundamental questions:

1. Does the treatment truly help patients with AGA?
2. How effective is this treatment?
3. How safe is it?

Does the Treatment Truly Help Patients?—Surprisingly, it is not always straightforward to confirm that a given treatment helps patients with AGA. Does oral finasteride help female AGA? Yes and no: Finasteride 1 mg is ineffective in the treatment of female AGA, but higher doses such as 2.5 or 5 mg likely have benefit.^1,2 Does topical minoxidil help AGA? Yes and no: Minoxidil 5% is ineffective in the treatment of a male with Hamilton-Norwood stage VII AGA but often is helpful in earlier stages of the condition.

One of the best ways to determine if a treatment really helps AGA is to evaluate how it performs in the setting of a well-conducted, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. These types of clinical trials have been performed for many known AGA treatments and give us some of the best evidence that a treatment truly works. The AGA treatments with the highest-quality evidence (level 1) are topical minoxidil, oral finasteride, and oral dutasteride for male AGA and topical minoxidil for female AGA.

How Effective Is This Treatment?—Patients are particularly interested to know whether a given treatment has the potential to notably restore hair density. It is one thing to know that use of the treatment might slightly improve hair density and another to know that it could potentially lead to dramatic improvement. In addition, patients want to know whether a specific treatment they are considering is more (or less) likely to improve their hair density compared to another treatment.

Advanced statistical methods such as the network meta-analysis are increasingly being used to understand how individual treatments from different studies compare. Two recent studies have provided us with powerful data on the relative efficacy of minoxidil and 5α-reductase inhibitors in the treatment of both male and female AGA.^2,3 A 2022 network meta-analysis of male AGA ranked treatment efficacy from most to least effective: oral dutasteride 0.5 mg, oral finasteride 5 mg, oral minoxidil 5 mg, oral finasteride 1 mg, and topical minoxidil 5%.³ Similarly, a 2023 network meta-analysis of female AGA ranked treatment efficacy from most to least effective: oral 5 mg finasteride, minoxidil solution 5% twice daily, oral minoxidil 1 mg, and minoxidil foam 5% once daily.² We are not yet able to rank all known treatments for AGA.

Things We Tend to Ignore: Quality of Data, Long-term Results, Nonresponders, and Study Populations—There are a few caveats for anyone treating AGA. First, the quality of published AGA studies is highly variable and many are of low quality. The highest-quality evidence (level 1) for male AGA comes from studies of minoxidil solution/foam 5% twice daily, oral finasteride 1 mg, and oral dutasteride 0.5 mg. For female AGA, the highest-quality evidence is for topical minoxidil—either 5% foam once daily or 2% solution twice daily. Lower-quality studies limit conclusions and the ability to properly compare treatments.

Second, long-term data are nonexistent for most of our AGA treatments. The exceptions include finasteride, dutasteride, and topical minoxidil, which have reasonably adequate long-term studies.^4-6 However, most other treatments have been evaluated only through short-term studies. It is tempting to assume that results from a 24-week study can be used to infer how a patient might respond when using the same treatment over the course of many decades; however, making these assumptions would be unwise.

Third, most AGA treatments help improve hair density in only a proportion of patients who decide to use the given treatment. There usually is one subgroup of patients for whom the treatment does not seem to help much at all and one subgroup for whom the treatment halts further hair loss but does not regrow hair. For example, in the case of finasteride treatment of male AGA, approximately 10% of patients do not seem to respond to treatment at all, and another 50% seem to be able to halt further loss but never achieve hair regrowth.⁷ In an analysis of 12 studies with 3927 male patients, Mella et al⁸ showed that 5.6 patients needed to be treated short term and 3.4 patients needed to be treated long term for 1 patient to perceive an improvement in the hair. It is clear that many males who use finasteride will not see evidence of hair regrowth. This same general concept applies for all available treatments and is important to remember if a patient with AGA decides to start 2 new treatments simultaneously. Consider the 34-year-old man who starts oral minoxidil and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for AGA. At his follow-up appointment 9 months later, the patient reports improved hair density and wants to know what contributed to the improvement: the oral minoxidil, the PRP, or both? Many practitioners would believe that both treatments likely provided some degree of benefit—but in reality, that represents a flaw in logic. If 2 hair loss treatments are started at exactly the same time, it is impossible to know the relative benefit of each treatment and whether one might not be helping at all. Combination therapies are still common in my practice and highly encouraged, but my personal preference is to stagger start dates whenever possible so I can determine each treatment’s contribution to the patient’s final outcome.

Finally, when evaluating what works for AGA, we need to define the specific patient subpopulation, as the available data are less robust for some patient groups than others. We have limited data in children and adolescents with AGA, as well as limited comparative data across different racial backgrounds, body mass indices, and underlying health issues. For example, data on the most effective strategies to treat female AGA in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome, premature menopause, and other endocrine disorders are lacking.

Which Treatments Also Have Good Safety?—The treatment that a patient ultimately selects also depends on its actual or perceived safety. Patients have vastly different levels of risk tolerance. Some patients would much rather start a less effective treatment if they believe that the chances of experiencing treatment-related adverse effects would be lower. In general, topical and injectable treatments tend to have fewer adverse effects than oral therapies. Long-term safety data generally are lacking for many hair-loss therapies. A limited number of studies of topical minoxidil include data up to 5 years,⁴ and some studies of oral finasteride and oral dutasteride include patients who used these medications for up to 10 years.^5,6

So Then, What Works?

The Table shows treatments for AGA and how I prioritize starting them in my own clinic. First-line treatment options often include those with level 1 evidence but also may include those with less-robust evidence plus a good history (over many years) of safety, affordability, ease of use, and effectiveness (eg, spironolactone and finasteride for female-pattern hair loss).

• Male AGA: I consider topical minoxidil, oral finasteride, and oral dutasteride as first-line agents, and low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and topical finasteride as second-line agents. Only topical minoxidil and oral finasteride are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for AGA in males; laser devices are FDA cleared.

• Premenopausal females with AGA: I use topical minoxidil and spironolactone as first-line agents. Low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and oral contraceptives are helpful second-line agents. Only topical minoxidil is FDA approved in women. I consider all treatments, with the exception of low-level laser, to be contraindicated in pregnancy.

• Postmenopausal females with AGA: I consider topical minoxidil, spironolactone, and oral finasteride as first-line agents. Low-level laser, PRP, oral minoxidil, and oral dutasteride are helpful second-line agents.

When choosing an initial treatment plan, I generally will start with one or more first-line options. I will then add or replace with remaining first-line options or a second-line option after 6 to 12 months depending on how well the patient responds to the first-line options. Patients who do not wish to use first-line options or have contraindications begin with second-line options. Third-line options are best reserved for patients who do not respond to or do not wish to use first- and second-line options.

Experts differ in opinion as to what constitutes a first-line treatment option and what constitutes a second- or third-line option. For example, some increasingly consider oral minoxidil to be a first-line option for AGA.⁹ In my opinion, the lack of high-quality comparative, randomized, controlled trials and long-term safety data keep oral minoxidil reserved as a respectable second-line option. Similarly, some experts reserve oral dutasteride as a second-line option for AGA.¹⁰ In my opinion, the data now are of the highest-quality evidence (level 1)⁹ to support placing oral dutasteride in the tier of first-line treatments.

Shared decision-making using an evidence-based approach is ultimately what connects patients with treatment plans that offer a good chance of helping to improve hair loss.

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

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. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

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. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

The past year has been a challenging time for many, both at the local level and globally, with divisive undercurrents across many communities. Many times, the end of the year is an opportunity for reflection. As I reflect on the state of perinatal psychiatry in the new year, I see several evolving issues that I’d like to share in this first column of 2024.

In 2023, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published new recommendations meant to enhance the well-being of pregnant and postpartum women and families. A main message from discussion papers borne out of these recommendations was that as a field, we should be doing more than identifying perinatal illness. We should be screening women at risk for postpartum psychiatric illness and see that those suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have access to care and “wrap-around services” from clinicians with varying expertise.

Screening is a primary way we identify patients at risk for psychiatric illness and also those who are suffering at the time of a screen. One problem I see in the near future is our disparate collection and management of data. When we look closely across health care systems, it’s not clear how screening data are captured, let alone managed. What is being done in one hospital system may be very different from what is being done elsewhere. Some clinicians are adopting digital platforms to identify those with postpartum depression, while others are practicing as they always have, either through a paper screening process or with queries as part of a clinical encounter.

Given this amalgam of methods for collecting and storing information, there does not appear to be a systematic way clinicians and researchers are recording whether women are meeting criteria for significant depressive symptoms or frank postpartum psychiatric illness. It is clear a more cohesive method for collection and management is needed to optimize the likelihood that next steps can be taken to get patients the care they need.

However, screening is only one part of the story. Certainly, in our own center, one of our greatest interests, both clinically and on the research side, is what happens after screening. Through our center’s initiation of the Screening and Treatment Enhancement for Postpartum Depression (STEPS for PPD) project funded by the Marriott Foundation, we are evaluating the outcomes of women who are screened at 6 weeks postpartum with significant depressive symptoms, and who are then given an opportunity to engage with a perinatal social worker who can assist with direct psychotherapy, arranging for referrals, and navigating care for a new mother.

What we are learning as we enroll women through the initial stages of STEPS for PPD is that screening and identifying women who likely suffer from PPD simply is not enough. In fact, once identified with a depression screening tool, women who are suffering from postpartum depression can be very challenging to engage clinically. What I am learning decades after starting to work with perinatal patients is that even with a screening system and effective tools for treatment of PPD, optimizing engagement with these depressed women seems a critical and understudied step on the road to optimizing positive clinical outcomes.

A recent study published in the Journal of Women’s Health explored gaps in care for perinatal depression and found that patients without a history of psychiatric illness prior to pregnancy were less likely to be screened for depression and 80% less likely to receive care if they developed depression compared with women with a previous history of psychiatric illness (J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2023 Oct;32[10]:1111-9).

That history may help women navigate to care, while women for whom psychiatric illness is a new experience may be less likely to engage, be referred for care, and receive appropriate treatment. The study indicates that, as a field, we must strive to ensure universal screening for depression in perinatal populations.

While we have always been particularly interested in populations of patients at highest risk for PPD, helping women at risk for PPD in the general population without a history of psychiatric illness is a large public health issue and will be an even larger undertaking. As women’s mental health is gaining more appropriate focus, both at the local level and even in the recent White House Initiative on Women’s Health Research, the focus has been on screening and developing new treatments.

We are not lacking in pharmacologic agents nor nonpharmacologic options as treatments for women experiencing PPD. Newer alternative treatments are being explored, such as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and even psychedelics as a potential therapy for PPD. But perhaps what we’ve learned in 2023 and as we move into a new year, is that the problem of tackling PPD is not only about having the right tools, but is about helping women navigate to the care that they need.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought with it an explosion of telehealth options that have enhanced the odds women can find support during such a challenging time; as society has returned to some semblance of normal, nearly all support groups for postpartum women have remained online.

When we set up Virtual Rounds at the Center for Women’s Mental Health at the beginning of the pandemic, I was struck by the community of colleagues at various stages of their careers dedicated to mitigating the suffering associated with perinatal psychiatric illness. As I’ve often said, it takes a village to care for these patients. We need help from colleagues with varying expertise — from lactation consultants, psychiatrists, psychologists, obstetricians, nurse practitioners, support group leaders, and a host of others — who can help reach these women.

At the end of the day, helping depressed women find resources is a challenge that we have not met in this country. We should be excited that we have so many treatment options to offer patients — whether it be a new first-in-class medication, TMS, or digital apps to ensure patients are receiving effective treatment. But there should also be a focus on reaching women who still need treatment, particularly in underserved communities where resources are sparse or nonexistent. Identifying the path to reaching these women where they are and getting them well should be a top priority in 2024.
 

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. STEPS for PPD is funded by the Marriott Foundation. Full disclosure information for Dr. Cohen is available at womensmentalhealth.org. Email Dr. Cohen at [email protected].

Nasal tanning spray is a recent phenomenon that has been gaining popularity among consumers on TikTok and other social media platforms. The active ingredient in the tanning spray is melanotan II—a synthetic analog of α‒melanocyte-stimulating hormone,^1,2 a naturally occurring hormone responsible for skin pigmentation. α‒Melanocyte-stimulating hormone is a derivative of the precursor proopiomelanocortin, an agonist on the melanocortin-1 receptor that promotes formation of eumelanin.^1,3 Eumelanin then provides pigmentation to the skin.³ Apart from its use for tanning, melanotan II has been reported to increase sexual function and aid in weight loss.¹

Melanotan II is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; however, injectable formulations can be obtained illegally on the Internet as well as at some tanning salons and beauty parlors.⁴ Although injectable forms of melanotan II have been used for years to artificially increase skin pigmentation, the newly hyped nasal tanning sprays are drawing the attention of consumers. The synthetic chemical spray is inhaled into the nasal mucosae, where it is readily absorbed into the bloodstream to act on melanocortin receptors throughout the body, thus enhancing skin pigmentation.² Because melanotan II is not approved, there is no guarantee that the product purchased from those sources is pure; therefore, consumers risk inhaling or injecting contaminated chemicals.⁵

In a 2017 study, Kirk and Greenfield⁶ cited self-image as a common concern among participants who expressed a preference for appearing tanned.⁶ Societal influence and standards to which young adults, particularly young women, often are accustomed drive some to take steps to achieve tanned skin, which they view as more attractive and healthier than untanned skin.^7,8

Social media consumption is a significant risk factor for developing or exacerbating body dissatisfaction among impressionable teenagers and young adults, who may be less risk averse and therefore choose to embrace trends such as nasal tanning sprays to enhance their appearance, without considering possible consequences. Most young adults, and even teens, are aware of the risks associated with tanning beds, which may propel them to seek out what they perceive as a less-risky tanning alternative such as a tanner delivered via a nasal route, but it is unlikely that this group is fully informed about the possible dangers of nasal tanning sprays.

It is crucial for dermatologists and other clinicians to provide awareness and education about the potential harm of nasal tanning sprays. Along with the general risks of using an unregulated substance, common adverse effects include acne, facial flushing, gastrointestinal tract upset, and sensitivity to sunlight (Table).^1,9,10 Several case reports have linked melanotan II to cutaneous changes, including dysplastic nevi and even melanoma.¹ Less common complications, such as renal infarction and priapism, also have been observed with melanotan II use.^9,10

Even with the known risks involving tanning beds and skin cancer, an analysis by Kream et al¹¹ in 2020 showed that 90% (441/488) of tanning-related videos on TikTok promoted a positive view of tanning. Of these TikTok videos involving pro-tanning trends, 3% (12/441) were specifically about melanotan II nasal spray, injection, or both, which has only become more popular since this study was published.¹¹

Dermatologists should be aware of the impact that tanning trends, such as nasal tanning spray, can have on all patients and initiate discussions regarding the risks of using these products with patients as appropriate. Alternatives to nasal tanning sprays such as spray-on tans and self-tanning lotions are safer ways for patients to achieve a tanned look without the health risks associated with melanotan II.

Nasal tanning spray is a recent phenomenon that has been gaining popularity among consumers on TikTok and other social media platforms. The active ingredient in the tanning spray is melanotan II—a synthetic analog of α‒melanocyte-stimulating hormone,^1,2 a naturally occurring hormone responsible for skin pigmentation. α‒Melanocyte-stimulating hormone is a derivative of the precursor proopiomelanocortin, an agonist on the melanocortin-1 receptor that promotes formation of eumelanin.^1,3 Eumelanin then provides pigmentation to the skin.³ Apart from its use for tanning, melanotan II has been reported to increase sexual function and aid in weight loss.¹

Melanotan II is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; however, injectable formulations can be obtained illegally on the Internet as well as at some tanning salons and beauty parlors.⁴ Although injectable forms of melanotan II have been used for years to artificially increase skin pigmentation, the newly hyped nasal tanning sprays are drawing the attention of consumers. The synthetic chemical spray is inhaled into the nasal mucosae, where it is readily absorbed into the bloodstream to act on melanocortin receptors throughout the body, thus enhancing skin pigmentation.² Because melanotan II is not approved, there is no guarantee that the product purchased from those sources is pure; therefore, consumers risk inhaling or injecting contaminated chemicals.⁵

In a 2017 study, Kirk and Greenfield⁶ cited self-image as a common concern among participants who expressed a preference for appearing tanned.⁶ Societal influence and standards to which young adults, particularly young women, often are accustomed drive some to take steps to achieve tanned skin, which they view as more attractive and healthier than untanned skin.^7,8

Social media consumption is a significant risk factor for developing or exacerbating body dissatisfaction among impressionable teenagers and young adults, who may be less risk averse and therefore choose to embrace trends such as nasal tanning sprays to enhance their appearance, without considering possible consequences. Most young adults, and even teens, are aware of the risks associated with tanning beds, which may propel them to seek out what they perceive as a less-risky tanning alternative such as a tanner delivered via a nasal route, but it is unlikely that this group is fully informed about the possible dangers of nasal tanning sprays.

It is crucial for dermatologists and other clinicians to provide awareness and education about the potential harm of nasal tanning sprays. Along with the general risks of using an unregulated substance, common adverse effects include acne, facial flushing, gastrointestinal tract upset, and sensitivity to sunlight (Table).^1,9,10 Several case reports have linked melanotan II to cutaneous changes, including dysplastic nevi and even melanoma.¹ Less common complications, such as renal infarction and priapism, also have been observed with melanotan II use.^9,10

Even with the known risks involving tanning beds and skin cancer, an analysis by Kream et al¹¹ in 2020 showed that 90% (441/488) of tanning-related videos on TikTok promoted a positive view of tanning. Of these TikTok videos involving pro-tanning trends, 3% (12/441) were specifically about melanotan II nasal spray, injection, or both, which has only become more popular since this study was published.¹¹

Dermatologists should be aware of the impact that tanning trends, such as nasal tanning spray, can have on all patients and initiate discussions regarding the risks of using these products with patients as appropriate. Alternatives to nasal tanning sprays such as spray-on tans and self-tanning lotions are safer ways for patients to achieve a tanned look without the health risks associated with melanotan II.

Nasal tanning spray is a recent phenomenon that has been gaining popularity among consumers on TikTok and other social media platforms. The active ingredient in the tanning spray is melanotan II—a synthetic analog of α‒melanocyte-stimulating hormone,^1,2 a naturally occurring hormone responsible for skin pigmentation. α‒Melanocyte-stimulating hormone is a derivative of the precursor proopiomelanocortin, an agonist on the melanocortin-1 receptor that promotes formation of eumelanin.^1,3 Eumelanin then provides pigmentation to the skin.³ Apart from its use for tanning, melanotan II has been reported to increase sexual function and aid in weight loss.¹

Melanotan II is not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration; however, injectable formulations can be obtained illegally on the Internet as well as at some tanning salons and beauty parlors.⁴ Although injectable forms of melanotan II have been used for years to artificially increase skin pigmentation, the newly hyped nasal tanning sprays are drawing the attention of consumers. The synthetic chemical spray is inhaled into the nasal mucosae, where it is readily absorbed into the bloodstream to act on melanocortin receptors throughout the body, thus enhancing skin pigmentation.² Because melanotan II is not approved, there is no guarantee that the product purchased from those sources is pure; therefore, consumers risk inhaling or injecting contaminated chemicals.⁵

In a 2017 study, Kirk and Greenfield⁶ cited self-image as a common concern among participants who expressed a preference for appearing tanned.⁶ Societal influence and standards to which young adults, particularly young women, often are accustomed drive some to take steps to achieve tanned skin, which they view as more attractive and healthier than untanned skin.^7,8

Social media consumption is a significant risk factor for developing or exacerbating body dissatisfaction among impressionable teenagers and young adults, who may be less risk averse and therefore choose to embrace trends such as nasal tanning sprays to enhance their appearance, without considering possible consequences. Most young adults, and even teens, are aware of the risks associated with tanning beds, which may propel them to seek out what they perceive as a less-risky tanning alternative such as a tanner delivered via a nasal route, but it is unlikely that this group is fully informed about the possible dangers of nasal tanning sprays.

It is crucial for dermatologists and other clinicians to provide awareness and education about the potential harm of nasal tanning sprays. Along with the general risks of using an unregulated substance, common adverse effects include acne, facial flushing, gastrointestinal tract upset, and sensitivity to sunlight (Table).^1,9,10 Several case reports have linked melanotan II to cutaneous changes, including dysplastic nevi and even melanoma.¹ Less common complications, such as renal infarction and priapism, also have been observed with melanotan II use.^9,10

Even with the known risks involving tanning beds and skin cancer, an analysis by Kream et al¹¹ in 2020 showed that 90% (441/488) of tanning-related videos on TikTok promoted a positive view of tanning. Of these TikTok videos involving pro-tanning trends, 3% (12/441) were specifically about melanotan II nasal spray, injection, or both, which has only become more popular since this study was published.¹¹

Dermatologists should be aware of the impact that tanning trends, such as nasal tanning spray, can have on all patients and initiate discussions regarding the risks of using these products with patients as appropriate. Alternatives to nasal tanning sprays such as spray-on tans and self-tanning lotions are safer ways for patients to achieve a tanned look without the health risks associated with melanotan II.

Often known as a “silent killer,” ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms (ATAAs) may grow asymptomatically until they rupture, at which point, mortality is over 90%.

But ATAAs may also carry a potential flip side: Apparent protection against the development of atherosclerotic plaque and by extension, for those who have one, a significantly reduced risk for coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction (MI).

“We noticed in the operating room that many patients we worked on who had an ATAA had pristine arteries, like a teenager’s,” said John Elefteriades, MD, William W.L. Glenn Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery and former chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. “The same was true of the femoral artery, which we use to hook up to the heart-lung machine.”

Elefteriades and colleagues have been investigating the implications of this association for more than two decades. Many of their studies are highlighted in a recent review of the evidence supporting the protective relationship between ATAAs and the development of atherosclerosis and the possible mechanisms driving the relationship.

“We see four different layers of protection,” said Sandip Mukherjee, MD, medical director of the Aortic Institute at Yale New Haven Hospital and a senior editor of the journal AORTA. Mukherjee collaborated with Elefteriades on many of the studies.

The first layer of protection is lower intima-media thickness, specifically, 0.131 mm lower than in individuals without an ATAA. “It may not seem like very much, but one point can actually translate into a 13%-15% decline in the rate of myocardial infarction or stroke,” Dr. Mukherjee said.

The second layer is lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Lower LDL cholesterol levels (75 mg/dL) were associated with increased odds of ATAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.21), whereas elevated levels (150 mg/dL and 200 mg/dL) were associated with decreased odds of ATAAs (OR, 0.62 and 0.29, respectively).

Lower calcification scores for the coronary arteries are the third layer of protection (6.73 vs 9.36 in one study).

The fourth protective layer is a significantly reduced prevalence of coronary artery disease. A study of individuals with ATAA compared to controls found 61 of those with ATAA had coronary artery disease vs 140 of controls, and 11 vs 83 had experienced an MI. Of note, patients with ATAAs were protected despite having higher body mass indices than controls.

Other MI risk factors such as age increased the risk even among those with an ATAA but, again, much less so than among controls; a multivariable binary logistic regression of data in the team’s review showed that patients with ATAAs were 298, 250, and 232 times less likely to have an MI than if they had a family history of MI, dyslipidemia, or hypertension, respectively.

Why the Protection?

The ligamentum arteriosum separates the ascending from the descending (thoracoabdominal) aorta. ATAAs, located above the ligamentum, tend to be pro-aneurysmal but anti-atherosclerotic. In the descending aorta, below the ligamentum, atherosclerotic aneurysms develop.

The differences between the two sections of the aorta originate in the germ layer in the embryo, Dr. Elefteriades said. “The fundamental difference in tissue of origin translates into marked differences in the character of aneurysms in the different aortic segments.”

What specifically underlies the reduced cardiovascular risk? “We don’t really know, but we think that there may be two possible etiologies,” Dr. Mukherjee said. One hypothesis involves transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), which is overexpressed in patients with ATAA and seems to increase their vulnerability to aneurysms while also conferring protection from coronary disease risk.

Some studies have shown differences in cellular responses to TGF-beta between the thoracic and abdominal aorta, including collagen production and contractility. Others have shown that some patients who have had an MI have polymorphisms that decrease their levels of TGF-beta.

Furthermore, TGF-beta plays a key role in the development of the intimal layer, which could underpin the lack of intimal thickening in patients with ATAA.

But overall, studies have been mixed and challenging to interpret, Dr. Elefteriades and Dr. Mukherjee agreed. TGF-beta has multiple remodeling roles in the body, and it is difficult at this point to isolate its exact role in aortic disease.

Another hypothesis involves matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which are dysregulated in patients with ATAA and may confer some protection, Mukherjee said. Several studies have shown higher plasma levels of certain MMPs in patients with ATAAs. MMPs also were found to be elevated in the thoracic aortic walls of patients with ATAA who had an aortic dissection, as well as in the aortic smooth muscle cells in the intima and media.

In addition, some studies have shown increased levels of MMP-2 in the aortas of patients with ATAAs compared with patients with coronary artery disease.

Adding to the mix of possibilities, “We recently found a gene that’s dysregulated in our aneurysm patients that is very intimately related to atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “But the work is too preliminary to say anything more at this point.”

“It would be fabulous to prove what it is causing this protection,” Dr. Mukherjee added. “But the truth is we don’t know. These are hypotheses.”

“The most important message from our work is that most clinicians need to dissociate an ATAA from the concept of atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “The ascending aorta is not an atherosclerotic phenomenon.”

How to Manage Patients With ATAA

What does the distinct character of ATAAs mean for patient management? “Finding a drug to treat ATAAs — to prevent growth, rupture, or dissection — has been like a search for the Holy Grail,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “Statins are not necessary, as this is a non-atherosclerotic process. Although sporadic studies have reported beneficial effects from beta-blockers or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), this has often been based on ‘soft’ evidence, requiring a combination of outcome measures to achieve significance.”

That said, he noted, “The mainstay, common sense treatment is to keep blood pressure controlled. This is usually achieved by a beta-blocker and an ARB, even if the benefit is not via a direct biologic effect on the aneurysmal degenerative process, but via simple hemodynamics — discouraging rupture by keeping pressure in the aorta low.”

Dr. Mukherjee suggested that these patients should be referred to a specialty aneurysm center where their genes will be evaluated, and then the aneurysm will be followed very closely.

“If the aneurysm is larger than 4.5 cm, we screen the patient every single year, and if they have chest pain, we treat them the same way as we treat other aneurysms,” he said. “As a rule of thumb, if the aneurysm reaches 5 cm, it should come out, although the size at which this should happen may differ between 4.5 cm and 5.5 cm, depending on the patient’s body size.”

As for lifestyle management, Dr. Elefteriades said, “Protection from atherosclerosis and MI won’t go away after the aneurysm is removed. We think it’s in the body’s chemistry. But even though it’s very hard for those patients to have a heart attack, we don’t recommend they eat roast beef every night — although I do think they’d be protected from such lifestyle aberrations.”

For now, he added, “Our team is on a hunt to find a drug to treat ascending disease directly and effectively. We have ongoing laboratory experiments with two drugs undergoing investigation at some level. We hope to embark soon on clinical trials.”

‘A Milestone’

James Hamilton Black III, MD, vice chair of the writing committee for the 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Aortic Disease Guideline and chief of Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, commented on the review and the concept of ATAA’s atherosclerotic protection.

“The association of ascending aortic aneurysms with a lower risk for MI is an interesting one, but it’s probably influenced, at least in part, by the patient population.” That population is at least partially curated since people are coming to an academic center. In addition, Dr. Black noted, “the patients with ATAAs are younger, and so age may be a confounding factor in the analyses. We wouldn’t expect them to have the same burden of atherosclerosis” as older patients.

Nevertheless, he said, “the findings speak to an emerging body of literature suggesting that although the aorta is a single organ, there are certainly different areas, and these would respond quite differently to environmental or genetic or heritable stressors. This isn’t surprising, and there probably are a lot of factors involved.”

Overall, he said, the findings underscore “the precision medicine approaches we need to take with patients with aortic diseases.”

In a commentary on the team’s review article, published in 2022, John G.T. Augoustides, MD, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suggested that ATAA’s “silver lining” could advance the understanding of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) management, be integrated with the expanding horizons in hereditary thoracic aortic disease, and might be explored in the context of bicuspid aortic valve disease.

Highlighting the “relative absence” of atherosclerosis in ascending aortic aneurysms and its importance is a “milestone in our understanding,” he concluded. “It is likely that future advances in TAAs will be significantly influenced by this observation.”

Dr. Elefteriades, Dr. Mukherjee, and Dr. Black have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Often known as a “silent killer,” ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms (ATAAs) may grow asymptomatically until they rupture, at which point, mortality is over 90%.

But ATAAs may also carry a potential flip side: Apparent protection against the development of atherosclerotic plaque and by extension, for those who have one, a significantly reduced risk for coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction (MI).

“We noticed in the operating room that many patients we worked on who had an ATAA had pristine arteries, like a teenager’s,” said John Elefteriades, MD, William W.L. Glenn Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery and former chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. “The same was true of the femoral artery, which we use to hook up to the heart-lung machine.”

Elefteriades and colleagues have been investigating the implications of this association for more than two decades. Many of their studies are highlighted in a recent review of the evidence supporting the protective relationship between ATAAs and the development of atherosclerosis and the possible mechanisms driving the relationship.

“We see four different layers of protection,” said Sandip Mukherjee, MD, medical director of the Aortic Institute at Yale New Haven Hospital and a senior editor of the journal AORTA. Mukherjee collaborated with Elefteriades on many of the studies.

The first layer of protection is lower intima-media thickness, specifically, 0.131 mm lower than in individuals without an ATAA. “It may not seem like very much, but one point can actually translate into a 13%-15% decline in the rate of myocardial infarction or stroke,” Dr. Mukherjee said.

The second layer is lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Lower LDL cholesterol levels (75 mg/dL) were associated with increased odds of ATAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.21), whereas elevated levels (150 mg/dL and 200 mg/dL) were associated with decreased odds of ATAAs (OR, 0.62 and 0.29, respectively).

Lower calcification scores for the coronary arteries are the third layer of protection (6.73 vs 9.36 in one study).

The fourth protective layer is a significantly reduced prevalence of coronary artery disease. A study of individuals with ATAA compared to controls found 61 of those with ATAA had coronary artery disease vs 140 of controls, and 11 vs 83 had experienced an MI. Of note, patients with ATAAs were protected despite having higher body mass indices than controls.

Other MI risk factors such as age increased the risk even among those with an ATAA but, again, much less so than among controls; a multivariable binary logistic regression of data in the team’s review showed that patients with ATAAs were 298, 250, and 232 times less likely to have an MI than if they had a family history of MI, dyslipidemia, or hypertension, respectively.

Why the Protection?

The ligamentum arteriosum separates the ascending from the descending (thoracoabdominal) aorta. ATAAs, located above the ligamentum, tend to be pro-aneurysmal but anti-atherosclerotic. In the descending aorta, below the ligamentum, atherosclerotic aneurysms develop.

The differences between the two sections of the aorta originate in the germ layer in the embryo, Dr. Elefteriades said. “The fundamental difference in tissue of origin translates into marked differences in the character of aneurysms in the different aortic segments.”

What specifically underlies the reduced cardiovascular risk? “We don’t really know, but we think that there may be two possible etiologies,” Dr. Mukherjee said. One hypothesis involves transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), which is overexpressed in patients with ATAA and seems to increase their vulnerability to aneurysms while also conferring protection from coronary disease risk.

Some studies have shown differences in cellular responses to TGF-beta between the thoracic and abdominal aorta, including collagen production and contractility. Others have shown that some patients who have had an MI have polymorphisms that decrease their levels of TGF-beta.

Furthermore, TGF-beta plays a key role in the development of the intimal layer, which could underpin the lack of intimal thickening in patients with ATAA.

But overall, studies have been mixed and challenging to interpret, Dr. Elefteriades and Dr. Mukherjee agreed. TGF-beta has multiple remodeling roles in the body, and it is difficult at this point to isolate its exact role in aortic disease.

Another hypothesis involves matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which are dysregulated in patients with ATAA and may confer some protection, Mukherjee said. Several studies have shown higher plasma levels of certain MMPs in patients with ATAAs. MMPs also were found to be elevated in the thoracic aortic walls of patients with ATAA who had an aortic dissection, as well as in the aortic smooth muscle cells in the intima and media.

In addition, some studies have shown increased levels of MMP-2 in the aortas of patients with ATAAs compared with patients with coronary artery disease.

Adding to the mix of possibilities, “We recently found a gene that’s dysregulated in our aneurysm patients that is very intimately related to atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “But the work is too preliminary to say anything more at this point.”

“It would be fabulous to prove what it is causing this protection,” Dr. Mukherjee added. “But the truth is we don’t know. These are hypotheses.”

“The most important message from our work is that most clinicians need to dissociate an ATAA from the concept of atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “The ascending aorta is not an atherosclerotic phenomenon.”

How to Manage Patients With ATAA

What does the distinct character of ATAAs mean for patient management? “Finding a drug to treat ATAAs — to prevent growth, rupture, or dissection — has been like a search for the Holy Grail,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “Statins are not necessary, as this is a non-atherosclerotic process. Although sporadic studies have reported beneficial effects from beta-blockers or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), this has often been based on ‘soft’ evidence, requiring a combination of outcome measures to achieve significance.”

That said, he noted, “The mainstay, common sense treatment is to keep blood pressure controlled. This is usually achieved by a beta-blocker and an ARB, even if the benefit is not via a direct biologic effect on the aneurysmal degenerative process, but via simple hemodynamics — discouraging rupture by keeping pressure in the aorta low.”

Dr. Mukherjee suggested that these patients should be referred to a specialty aneurysm center where their genes will be evaluated, and then the aneurysm will be followed very closely.

“If the aneurysm is larger than 4.5 cm, we screen the patient every single year, and if they have chest pain, we treat them the same way as we treat other aneurysms,” he said. “As a rule of thumb, if the aneurysm reaches 5 cm, it should come out, although the size at which this should happen may differ between 4.5 cm and 5.5 cm, depending on the patient’s body size.”

As for lifestyle management, Dr. Elefteriades said, “Protection from atherosclerosis and MI won’t go away after the aneurysm is removed. We think it’s in the body’s chemistry. But even though it’s very hard for those patients to have a heart attack, we don’t recommend they eat roast beef every night — although I do think they’d be protected from such lifestyle aberrations.”

For now, he added, “Our team is on a hunt to find a drug to treat ascending disease directly and effectively. We have ongoing laboratory experiments with two drugs undergoing investigation at some level. We hope to embark soon on clinical trials.”

‘A Milestone’

James Hamilton Black III, MD, vice chair of the writing committee for the 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Aortic Disease Guideline and chief of Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, commented on the review and the concept of ATAA’s atherosclerotic protection.

“The association of ascending aortic aneurysms with a lower risk for MI is an interesting one, but it’s probably influenced, at least in part, by the patient population.” That population is at least partially curated since people are coming to an academic center. In addition, Dr. Black noted, “the patients with ATAAs are younger, and so age may be a confounding factor in the analyses. We wouldn’t expect them to have the same burden of atherosclerosis” as older patients.

Nevertheless, he said, “the findings speak to an emerging body of literature suggesting that although the aorta is a single organ, there are certainly different areas, and these would respond quite differently to environmental or genetic or heritable stressors. This isn’t surprising, and there probably are a lot of factors involved.”

Overall, he said, the findings underscore “the precision medicine approaches we need to take with patients with aortic diseases.”

In a commentary on the team’s review article, published in 2022, John G.T. Augoustides, MD, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suggested that ATAA’s “silver lining” could advance the understanding of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) management, be integrated with the expanding horizons in hereditary thoracic aortic disease, and might be explored in the context of bicuspid aortic valve disease.

Highlighting the “relative absence” of atherosclerosis in ascending aortic aneurysms and its importance is a “milestone in our understanding,” he concluded. “It is likely that future advances in TAAs will be significantly influenced by this observation.”

Dr. Elefteriades, Dr. Mukherjee, and Dr. Black have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Often known as a “silent killer,” ascending thoracic aortic aneurysms (ATAAs) may grow asymptomatically until they rupture, at which point, mortality is over 90%.

But ATAAs may also carry a potential flip side: Apparent protection against the development of atherosclerotic plaque and by extension, for those who have one, a significantly reduced risk for coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction (MI).

“We noticed in the operating room that many patients we worked on who had an ATAA had pristine arteries, like a teenager’s,” said John Elefteriades, MD, William W.L. Glenn Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery and former chief of cardiothoracic surgery at Yale University and Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut. “The same was true of the femoral artery, which we use to hook up to the heart-lung machine.”

Elefteriades and colleagues have been investigating the implications of this association for more than two decades. Many of their studies are highlighted in a recent review of the evidence supporting the protective relationship between ATAAs and the development of atherosclerosis and the possible mechanisms driving the relationship.

“We see four different layers of protection,” said Sandip Mukherjee, MD, medical director of the Aortic Institute at Yale New Haven Hospital and a senior editor of the journal AORTA. Mukherjee collaborated with Elefteriades on many of the studies.

The first layer of protection is lower intima-media thickness, specifically, 0.131 mm lower than in individuals without an ATAA. “It may not seem like very much, but one point can actually translate into a 13%-15% decline in the rate of myocardial infarction or stroke,” Dr. Mukherjee said.

The second layer is lower levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Lower LDL cholesterol levels (75 mg/dL) were associated with increased odds of ATAAs (odds ratio [OR], 1.21), whereas elevated levels (150 mg/dL and 200 mg/dL) were associated with decreased odds of ATAAs (OR, 0.62 and 0.29, respectively).

Lower calcification scores for the coronary arteries are the third layer of protection (6.73 vs 9.36 in one study).

The fourth protective layer is a significantly reduced prevalence of coronary artery disease. A study of individuals with ATAA compared to controls found 61 of those with ATAA had coronary artery disease vs 140 of controls, and 11 vs 83 had experienced an MI. Of note, patients with ATAAs were protected despite having higher body mass indices than controls.

Other MI risk factors such as age increased the risk even among those with an ATAA but, again, much less so than among controls; a multivariable binary logistic regression of data in the team’s review showed that patients with ATAAs were 298, 250, and 232 times less likely to have an MI than if they had a family history of MI, dyslipidemia, or hypertension, respectively.

Why the Protection?

The ligamentum arteriosum separates the ascending from the descending (thoracoabdominal) aorta. ATAAs, located above the ligamentum, tend to be pro-aneurysmal but anti-atherosclerotic. In the descending aorta, below the ligamentum, atherosclerotic aneurysms develop.

The differences between the two sections of the aorta originate in the germ layer in the embryo, Dr. Elefteriades said. “The fundamental difference in tissue of origin translates into marked differences in the character of aneurysms in the different aortic segments.”

What specifically underlies the reduced cardiovascular risk? “We don’t really know, but we think that there may be two possible etiologies,” Dr. Mukherjee said. One hypothesis involves transforming growth factor–beta (TGF-beta), which is overexpressed in patients with ATAA and seems to increase their vulnerability to aneurysms while also conferring protection from coronary disease risk.

Some studies have shown differences in cellular responses to TGF-beta between the thoracic and abdominal aorta, including collagen production and contractility. Others have shown that some patients who have had an MI have polymorphisms that decrease their levels of TGF-beta.

Furthermore, TGF-beta plays a key role in the development of the intimal layer, which could underpin the lack of intimal thickening in patients with ATAA.

But overall, studies have been mixed and challenging to interpret, Dr. Elefteriades and Dr. Mukherjee agreed. TGF-beta has multiple remodeling roles in the body, and it is difficult at this point to isolate its exact role in aortic disease.

Another hypothesis involves matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), which are dysregulated in patients with ATAA and may confer some protection, Mukherjee said. Several studies have shown higher plasma levels of certain MMPs in patients with ATAAs. MMPs also were found to be elevated in the thoracic aortic walls of patients with ATAA who had an aortic dissection, as well as in the aortic smooth muscle cells in the intima and media.

In addition, some studies have shown increased levels of MMP-2 in the aortas of patients with ATAAs compared with patients with coronary artery disease.

Adding to the mix of possibilities, “We recently found a gene that’s dysregulated in our aneurysm patients that is very intimately related to atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “But the work is too preliminary to say anything more at this point.”

“It would be fabulous to prove what it is causing this protection,” Dr. Mukherjee added. “But the truth is we don’t know. These are hypotheses.”

“The most important message from our work is that most clinicians need to dissociate an ATAA from the concept of atherosclerosis,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “The ascending aorta is not an atherosclerotic phenomenon.”

How to Manage Patients With ATAA

What does the distinct character of ATAAs mean for patient management? “Finding a drug to treat ATAAs — to prevent growth, rupture, or dissection — has been like a search for the Holy Grail,” Dr. Elefteriades said. “Statins are not necessary, as this is a non-atherosclerotic process. Although sporadic studies have reported beneficial effects from beta-blockers or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), this has often been based on ‘soft’ evidence, requiring a combination of outcome measures to achieve significance.”

That said, he noted, “The mainstay, common sense treatment is to keep blood pressure controlled. This is usually achieved by a beta-blocker and an ARB, even if the benefit is not via a direct biologic effect on the aneurysmal degenerative process, but via simple hemodynamics — discouraging rupture by keeping pressure in the aorta low.”

Dr. Mukherjee suggested that these patients should be referred to a specialty aneurysm center where their genes will be evaluated, and then the aneurysm will be followed very closely.

“If the aneurysm is larger than 4.5 cm, we screen the patient every single year, and if they have chest pain, we treat them the same way as we treat other aneurysms,” he said. “As a rule of thumb, if the aneurysm reaches 5 cm, it should come out, although the size at which this should happen may differ between 4.5 cm and 5.5 cm, depending on the patient’s body size.”

As for lifestyle management, Dr. Elefteriades said, “Protection from atherosclerosis and MI won’t go away after the aneurysm is removed. We think it’s in the body’s chemistry. But even though it’s very hard for those patients to have a heart attack, we don’t recommend they eat roast beef every night — although I do think they’d be protected from such lifestyle aberrations.”

For now, he added, “Our team is on a hunt to find a drug to treat ascending disease directly and effectively. We have ongoing laboratory experiments with two drugs undergoing investigation at some level. We hope to embark soon on clinical trials.”

‘A Milestone’

James Hamilton Black III, MD, vice chair of the writing committee for the 2022 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Aortic Disease Guideline and chief of Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, commented on the review and the concept of ATAA’s atherosclerotic protection.

“The association of ascending aortic aneurysms with a lower risk for MI is an interesting one, but it’s probably influenced, at least in part, by the patient population.” That population is at least partially curated since people are coming to an academic center. In addition, Dr. Black noted, “the patients with ATAAs are younger, and so age may be a confounding factor in the analyses. We wouldn’t expect them to have the same burden of atherosclerosis” as older patients.

Nevertheless, he said, “the findings speak to an emerging body of literature suggesting that although the aorta is a single organ, there are certainly different areas, and these would respond quite differently to environmental or genetic or heritable stressors. This isn’t surprising, and there probably are a lot of factors involved.”

Overall, he said, the findings underscore “the precision medicine approaches we need to take with patients with aortic diseases.”

In a commentary on the team’s review article, published in 2022, John G.T. Augoustides, MD, professor of anesthesiology and critical care at the Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, suggested that ATAA’s “silver lining” could advance the understanding of thoracic aortic aneurysm (TAA) management, be integrated with the expanding horizons in hereditary thoracic aortic disease, and might be explored in the context of bicuspid aortic valve disease.

Highlighting the “relative absence” of atherosclerosis in ascending aortic aneurysms and its importance is a “milestone in our understanding,” he concluded. “It is likely that future advances in TAAs will be significantly influenced by this observation.”

Dr. Elefteriades, Dr. Mukherjee, and Dr. Black have no relevant conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.

Harvard Medical School’s Sharon K. Inouye, MD, MPH, is editor in chief of JAMA Internal Medicine and a leading voice in American gerontology. We asked her to choose five of the influential journal’s most impactful studies from 2023 and highlight important take-home messages for internists and their colleagues.
 

Q: One of the studies you chose suggests that the antiviral nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid) can ward off long COVID. Could you recap the findings?

A: Researchers followed a group of more than 280,000 Department of Veterans Affairs patients who were seen in 2022, had a positive COVID test, and had at least one risk factor for severe COVID. They focused on those who survived to 30 days after their COVID infection and compared those who received the drug within the first 5 days of a positive test with an equivalent control group.

They found that 13 long COVID symptoms were all significantly less common (relative risk = 0.74) in those who received nirmatrelvir. This was true no matter whether they’d ever had a COVID vaccination.
 

Q: How should this research affect clinical practice?

A: You can’t generalize from this to everyone because, of course, not everyone was included in this study. But it is highly suggestive that this drug is very effective for preventing long COVID.

Nirmatrelvir was touted as being able to shorten duration of illness and prevent hospitalization. But if you were low risk or you were already well into your COVID course, it wasn’t like rush, rush, rush to the doctor to get it.

This changes that equation because we know long COVID is such a huge issue. The vast majority of doctors who work with COVID patients and know this are now being more aggressive about prescribing it.
 

Q: What about patients whom the CDC considers to be at less risk — people with up-to-date vaccinations who are under 50 with mild-to-moderate COVID and no higher-risk medical conditions? Should they take nirmatrelvir?

A: The evidence is not 100% in yet. A study like this one needs to be repeated and include younger people without any risk factors to see if we see the same thing. So it’s a personal choice, and a personal calculus needs to be done. A lot of people are making that choice [to take the drug], and it can be a rational decision.

Q: You also chose a study that links high thyroid hormone levels to higher rates of dementia. What did it reveal?

A: This study looks at patients who had thyrotoxicosis — a thyroid level that’s too high — from hormone produced endogenously, and exogenously. Researchers tracked almost 66,000 patients aged 65 and older and found that thyrotoxicosis from all causes, whether it was endogenous or exogenous, was linked to an increased risk of dementia in a dose-response relationship (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.39).

Q: Is there a clinical take-home message here?

A: When we start patients on thyroid medication, they don’t always get reassessed on a regular basis. Given this finding, a TSH [thyroid-stimulating hormone] level is indicated during the annual wellness check that patients on Medicare can get every year.

Q: Is TSH measured as part of routine blood tests?

A: No it’s not. It has to be ordered. I think that’s why we’re seeing this problem to begin with — because it’s not something we all have awareness about. I wasn’t aware myself that mildly high levels of thyroid could increase the risk of cognitive impairment. Certainly, I’m going to be much more aware in my practice.

Q: You also picked a study about silicosis in workers who are exposed to dust when they make engineered stone countertops, also known as quartz countertops. What were the findings?

A: Silicosis is a very serious lung condition that develops from exposure to crystalline silica. Essentially, sand gets inhaled into the lungs. Workers can be exposed when they’re making engineered stone countertops, the most popular countertops now in the United States.

This study is based on statewide surveys from 2019 to 2022 that the California Department of Public Health does routinely. They gathered cases of silicosis and found 52 — all men with an average age of 45. All but one were Latino immigrants, and most either had no insurance or very poor insurance.
 

Q: The study found that “diagnosis was delayed in 58%, with 38% presenting with advanced disease (progressive massive fibrosis), and 19% died.” What does that tell you?

A: It’s a very serious condition. Once it gets to the advanced stage, it will just continue to progress, and the person will die. That’s why it’s so important to know that it’s absolutely preventable.

Q: Is there a message here for internists?

A: If you treat a lot of immigrants or work in an area where there are a lot of industrial workers, you’re going to want to have a very high suspicion about it. If you see an atypical pattern on the chest x-ray or via diffusion scoring, have a low threshold for getting a pulmonary function test.

Doctors need to be aware and diagnose this very quickly. When patients present, you can pull them out of that work environment or put mitigation systems into place.
 

Q: California regulators were expected to put emergency rules into place in late December to protect workers. Did this study play a role in focusing attention on the problem?

A: This article, along with a commentary and podcast that we put out, really helped with advocacy to improve health and safety for workers at stone-cutting and fabrication shops.

Q: You were impressed by another study about airborne dangers, this one linking air pollution to dementia. What did researchers discover?

A: [This analysis] of more than 27,000 people in the Health and Retirement Study, a respected and rich database, found that exposure to air pollution was associated with greater rates of dementia — an increase of about 8% a year. Exposure to agricultural emissions and wildfire smoke were most robustly associated with a greater risk of dementia.

Q: How are these findings important, especially in light of the unhealthy air spawned by recent wildfires in the United States and Canada?

A: Studies like this will make it even more compelling that we are better prepared for air quality issues.

I grew up in Los Angeles, where smog and pollution were very big issues. I was constantly hearing about various mitigation strategies that were going into place. But after I moved to the East Coast, I almost never heard about prevention.

Now, I’m hoping we can keep this topic in the national conversation.
 

Q: You also highlighted a systematic review of the use of restraints in the emergency department. Why did you choose this research?

A: At JAMA Internal Medicine, we’re really focused on ways we can address health disparities and raise awareness of potential unconscious bias.

This review looked at 10 studies that included more than 2.5 million patient encounters, including 24,000 incidents of physical restraint use. They found that the overall rate of use of restraints was low at below 1%.

But when they are used, Black patients were 1.3 times more likely to be restrained than White patients.
 

Q: What’s the message here?

A: This is an important start to recognizing these differences and then changing our behavior. Perhaps restraints don’t need to be used as often in light of evidence, for example, of increased rates of misdiagnosis of psychosis in the Black population.

Q: How should physicians change their approach to restraints?

A: Restraints are not to be used to control disruption — wild behavior or verbal outbursts. They’re for when someone is a danger to themselves or others.

Dr. Inouye has no conflicts of interest.