From the Editor

Finally, 2020 is coming to an end, but the agony its viral pandemic inflicted on the entire world population will continue for a long time. And much as we would like to forget its damaging effects, it will surely be etched into our brains for the rest of our lives. The children who suffered the pain of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic will endure its emotional scars for the rest of the 21st century.

Reading about the plagues of the past doesn’t come close to experiencing it and suffering through it. COVID-19 will continue to have ripple effects on every aspect of life on this planet, on individuals and on societies all over the world, especially on the biopsychosocial well-being of billions of humans around the globe.

Unprecedented disruptions

Think of the unprecedented disruptions inflicted by the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic on our neural circuits. One of the wonders of the human brain is its continuous remodeling due to experiential neuroplasticity, and the formation of dendritic spines that immediately encode the memories of every experience. The turmoil of 2020 and its virulent pandemic will be forever etched into our collective brains, especially in our hippocampi and amygdalae. The impact on the developing brains of our children and grandchildren could be profound and may induce epigenetic changes that trigger psychopathology in the future.^1,2

As with the dinosaurs, the 2020 pandemic is like a “viral asteroid” that left devastation on our social fabric and psychological well-being in its wake. We now have deep empathy with our 1918 ancestors and their tribulations, although so far, in the United States the proportion of people infected with COVID-19 (3% as of mid-November 2020³) is dwarfed by the proportion infected with the influenza virus a century ago (30%). As of mid-November 2020, the number of global COVID-19 deaths (1.3 million³) was a tiny fraction of the 1918 influenza pandemic deaths (50 million worldwide and 675,000 in the United States⁴). Amazingly, researchers did not even know whether the killer germ was a virus or a bacterium until 1930, and it then took another 75 years to decode the genome of the influenza virus in 2005. In contrast, it took only a few short weeks to decode the genome of the virus that causes COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2), and to begin developing multiple vaccines “at warp speed.” No vaccine or therapies were ever developed for victims of the 1918 pandemic.

An abundance of articles has been published about the pandemic since it ambushed us early in 2020, including many in Current Psychiatry.^5-21 But these publications don’t do justice to the emotional toll of living through the pandemic and witnessing its multi­farious repercussions (Table). It was truly bizarre and shocking for us to see our society and all its components literally come to a standstill, forcing the population to stop working, reducing us to simply “existing” inside our homes, with no socializing, traveling, or interacting. More unbearable than the sudden emptiness and paralysis was the unremitting fear, laced with a profound uncertainty of what was to come or when it would end.

Most psychiatrists are familiar with the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale,²² which contains 43 life events that cumulatively can progressively increase the odds of physical illness. It is likely that most of the world’s population will score very high on the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale, which would predict an increased risk of medical illness, even after the pandemic subsides.

Exacerbating the situation is that hospitals and clinics had to shut down most of their operations to focus their resources on treating patients with COVID-19 in ICUs. This halted all routine screenings for cancer and heart, kidney, liver, lung, or brain diseases. In addition, diagnostic or therapeutic procedures such as endoscopies, colonoscopies, angiograms, or biopsies abruptly stopped, resulting in a surge of non–COVID-19 medical disorders and mortality as reported in several articles across many specialties.²³ Going forward, in addition to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, there is a significant likelihood of an increase in myriad medical disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic is obviously inflicting both direct and indirect casualties as it stretches into the next year and perhaps longer. The only hope for the community of nations is the rapid arrival of evidence-based treatments and vaccine(s).

Continue to: A progression of relentless stress

A progression of relentless stress

At the core of this pandemic is relentless stress. When it began in early 2020, the pandemic ignited an acute stress reaction due to the fear of death and the oddness of being isolated at home. Aggravating the acute stress was the realization that life as we knew it suddenly disappeared and all business or social activities had come to a screeching halt. It was almost surreal when streets usually bustling with human activity (such as Times Square in New York or Michigan Avenue in Chicago) became completely deserted and eerily silent. In addition, more stress was generated from watching television or scrolling through social media and being inundated with morbid and frightening news and updates about the number of individuals who became infected or died, and the official projections of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of fatalities. Further intensifying the stress was hearing that there was a shortage of personal protective equipment (even masks), a lack of ventilators, and the absence of any medications to fight the overwhelming viral infection. Especially stressed were the front-line physicians and nurses, who heroically transcended their fears to save their patients’ lives. The sight of refrigerated trucks serving as temporary morgues outside hospital doors was chilling. The world became a macabre place where people died in hospitals without any relative to hold their hands or comfort them, and then were buried quickly without any formal funerals due to mandatory social distancing. The inability of families to grieve for their loved ones added another poignant layer of sadness and distress to the survivors who were unable to bid their loved ones goodbye. This was a jarring example of adding insult to injury.

With the protraction of the exceptional changes imposed by the pandemic, the acute stress reaction transmuted into posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on a wide scale. Millions of previously healthy individuals began to succumb to the symptoms of PTSD (irritability, hypervigilance, intrusive thoughts, avoidance, insomnia, and bad dreams). The heaviest burden was inflicted on our patients, across all ages, with preexisting psychiatric conditions, who comprise approximately 25% of the population per the classic Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) study.²⁴ These vulnerable patients, whom we see in our clinics and hospitals every day, had a significant exacerbation of their psychopathology, including anxiety, depression, psychosis, binge eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcohol and substance use disorders, child abuse, and intimate partner violence.^25,26 The saving grace was the rapid adoption of telepsychiatry, which our psychiatric patients rapidly accepted. Many of them found it more convenient than dressing and driving and parking at the clinic. It also enabled psychiatrists to obtain useful collateral information from family members or partners.

If something good comes from this catastrophic social stress that emotionally hobbled the entire population, it would be the dilution of the stigma of mental illness because everyone has become more empathic due to their personal experience. Optimistically, this may also help expedite true health care parity for psychiatric brain disorders. And perhaps the government may see the need to train more psychiatrists and fund a higher number of residency stipends to all training programs.

Quo vadis COVID-19?

So, looking through the dense fog of the pandemic fatigue, what will 2021 bring us? Will waves of COVID-19 lead to pandemic exhaustion? Will the frayed public mental health care system be able to handle the surge of frayed nerves? Will social distancing intensify the widespread emotional disquietude? Will the children be able to manifest resilience and avoid disabling psychiatric disorders? Will the survivors of COVID-19 infections suffer from post–COVD-19 neuropsychiatric and other medical sequelae? Will efficacious therapies and vaccines emerge to blunt the spread of the virus? Will we all be able to gather in stadiums and arenas to enjoy sporting events, shows, and concerts? Will eating at our favorite restaurants become routine again? Will engaged couples be able to organize well-attended weddings and receptions? Will airplanes and hotels be fully booked again? Importantly, will all children and college students be able to resume their education in person and socialize ad lib? Will we be able to shed our masks and hug each other hello and goodbye? Will scientific journals and social media cover a wide array of topics again as before? Will the number of deaths dwindle to zero, and will we return to worrying mainly about the usual seasonal flu? Will everyone be able to leave home and go to work again?

I hope that the thick dust of this 2020 viral asteroid will settle in 2021, and that “normalcy” is eventually restored to our lives, allowing us to deal with other ongoing stresses such as social unrest and political hyperpartisanship.

Finally, 2020 is coming to an end, but the agony its viral pandemic inflicted on the entire world population will continue for a long time. And much as we would like to forget its damaging effects, it will surely be etched into our brains for the rest of our lives. The children who suffered the pain of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic will endure its emotional scars for the rest of the 21st century.

Reading about the plagues of the past doesn’t come close to experiencing it and suffering through it. COVID-19 will continue to have ripple effects on every aspect of life on this planet, on individuals and on societies all over the world, especially on the biopsychosocial well-being of billions of humans around the globe.

Unprecedented disruptions

Think of the unprecedented disruptions inflicted by the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic on our neural circuits. One of the wonders of the human brain is its continuous remodeling due to experiential neuroplasticity, and the formation of dendritic spines that immediately encode the memories of every experience. The turmoil of 2020 and its virulent pandemic will be forever etched into our collective brains, especially in our hippocampi and amygdalae. The impact on the developing brains of our children and grandchildren could be profound and may induce epigenetic changes that trigger psychopathology in the future.^1,2

As with the dinosaurs, the 2020 pandemic is like a “viral asteroid” that left devastation on our social fabric and psychological well-being in its wake. We now have deep empathy with our 1918 ancestors and their tribulations, although so far, in the United States the proportion of people infected with COVID-19 (3% as of mid-November 2020³) is dwarfed by the proportion infected with the influenza virus a century ago (30%). As of mid-November 2020, the number of global COVID-19 deaths (1.3 million³) was a tiny fraction of the 1918 influenza pandemic deaths (50 million worldwide and 675,000 in the United States⁴). Amazingly, researchers did not even know whether the killer germ was a virus or a bacterium until 1930, and it then took another 75 years to decode the genome of the influenza virus in 2005. In contrast, it took only a few short weeks to decode the genome of the virus that causes COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2), and to begin developing multiple vaccines “at warp speed.” No vaccine or therapies were ever developed for victims of the 1918 pandemic.

An abundance of articles has been published about the pandemic since it ambushed us early in 2020, including many in Current Psychiatry.^5-21 But these publications don’t do justice to the emotional toll of living through the pandemic and witnessing its multi­farious repercussions (Table). It was truly bizarre and shocking for us to see our society and all its components literally come to a standstill, forcing the population to stop working, reducing us to simply “existing” inside our homes, with no socializing, traveling, or interacting. More unbearable than the sudden emptiness and paralysis was the unremitting fear, laced with a profound uncertainty of what was to come or when it would end.

Most psychiatrists are familiar with the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale,²² which contains 43 life events that cumulatively can progressively increase the odds of physical illness. It is likely that most of the world’s population will score very high on the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale, which would predict an increased risk of medical illness, even after the pandemic subsides.

Exacerbating the situation is that hospitals and clinics had to shut down most of their operations to focus their resources on treating patients with COVID-19 in ICUs. This halted all routine screenings for cancer and heart, kidney, liver, lung, or brain diseases. In addition, diagnostic or therapeutic procedures such as endoscopies, colonoscopies, angiograms, or biopsies abruptly stopped, resulting in a surge of non–COVID-19 medical disorders and mortality as reported in several articles across many specialties.²³ Going forward, in addition to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, there is a significant likelihood of an increase in myriad medical disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic is obviously inflicting both direct and indirect casualties as it stretches into the next year and perhaps longer. The only hope for the community of nations is the rapid arrival of evidence-based treatments and vaccine(s).

Continue to: A progression of relentless stress

A progression of relentless stress

At the core of this pandemic is relentless stress. When it began in early 2020, the pandemic ignited an acute stress reaction due to the fear of death and the oddness of being isolated at home. Aggravating the acute stress was the realization that life as we knew it suddenly disappeared and all business or social activities had come to a screeching halt. It was almost surreal when streets usually bustling with human activity (such as Times Square in New York or Michigan Avenue in Chicago) became completely deserted and eerily silent. In addition, more stress was generated from watching television or scrolling through social media and being inundated with morbid and frightening news and updates about the number of individuals who became infected or died, and the official projections of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of fatalities. Further intensifying the stress was hearing that there was a shortage of personal protective equipment (even masks), a lack of ventilators, and the absence of any medications to fight the overwhelming viral infection. Especially stressed were the front-line physicians and nurses, who heroically transcended their fears to save their patients’ lives. The sight of refrigerated trucks serving as temporary morgues outside hospital doors was chilling. The world became a macabre place where people died in hospitals without any relative to hold their hands or comfort them, and then were buried quickly without any formal funerals due to mandatory social distancing. The inability of families to grieve for their loved ones added another poignant layer of sadness and distress to the survivors who were unable to bid their loved ones goodbye. This was a jarring example of adding insult to injury.

With the protraction of the exceptional changes imposed by the pandemic, the acute stress reaction transmuted into posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on a wide scale. Millions of previously healthy individuals began to succumb to the symptoms of PTSD (irritability, hypervigilance, intrusive thoughts, avoidance, insomnia, and bad dreams). The heaviest burden was inflicted on our patients, across all ages, with preexisting psychiatric conditions, who comprise approximately 25% of the population per the classic Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) study.²⁴ These vulnerable patients, whom we see in our clinics and hospitals every day, had a significant exacerbation of their psychopathology, including anxiety, depression, psychosis, binge eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcohol and substance use disorders, child abuse, and intimate partner violence.^25,26 The saving grace was the rapid adoption of telepsychiatry, which our psychiatric patients rapidly accepted. Many of them found it more convenient than dressing and driving and parking at the clinic. It also enabled psychiatrists to obtain useful collateral information from family members or partners.

If something good comes from this catastrophic social stress that emotionally hobbled the entire population, it would be the dilution of the stigma of mental illness because everyone has become more empathic due to their personal experience. Optimistically, this may also help expedite true health care parity for psychiatric brain disorders. And perhaps the government may see the need to train more psychiatrists and fund a higher number of residency stipends to all training programs.

Quo vadis COVID-19?

So, looking through the dense fog of the pandemic fatigue, what will 2021 bring us? Will waves of COVID-19 lead to pandemic exhaustion? Will the frayed public mental health care system be able to handle the surge of frayed nerves? Will social distancing intensify the widespread emotional disquietude? Will the children be able to manifest resilience and avoid disabling psychiatric disorders? Will the survivors of COVID-19 infections suffer from post–COVD-19 neuropsychiatric and other medical sequelae? Will efficacious therapies and vaccines emerge to blunt the spread of the virus? Will we all be able to gather in stadiums and arenas to enjoy sporting events, shows, and concerts? Will eating at our favorite restaurants become routine again? Will engaged couples be able to organize well-attended weddings and receptions? Will airplanes and hotels be fully booked again? Importantly, will all children and college students be able to resume their education in person and socialize ad lib? Will we be able to shed our masks and hug each other hello and goodbye? Will scientific journals and social media cover a wide array of topics again as before? Will the number of deaths dwindle to zero, and will we return to worrying mainly about the usual seasonal flu? Will everyone be able to leave home and go to work again?

I hope that the thick dust of this 2020 viral asteroid will settle in 2021, and that “normalcy” is eventually restored to our lives, allowing us to deal with other ongoing stresses such as social unrest and political hyperpartisanship.

Finally, 2020 is coming to an end, but the agony its viral pandemic inflicted on the entire world population will continue for a long time. And much as we would like to forget its damaging effects, it will surely be etched into our brains for the rest of our lives. The children who suffered the pain of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic will endure its emotional scars for the rest of the 21st century.

Reading about the plagues of the past doesn’t come close to experiencing it and suffering through it. COVID-19 will continue to have ripple effects on every aspect of life on this planet, on individuals and on societies all over the world, especially on the biopsychosocial well-being of billions of humans around the globe.

Unprecedented disruptions

Think of the unprecedented disruptions inflicted by the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic on our neural circuits. One of the wonders of the human brain is its continuous remodeling due to experiential neuroplasticity, and the formation of dendritic spines that immediately encode the memories of every experience. The turmoil of 2020 and its virulent pandemic will be forever etched into our collective brains, especially in our hippocampi and amygdalae. The impact on the developing brains of our children and grandchildren could be profound and may induce epigenetic changes that trigger psychopathology in the future.^1,2

As with the dinosaurs, the 2020 pandemic is like a “viral asteroid” that left devastation on our social fabric and psychological well-being in its wake. We now have deep empathy with our 1918 ancestors and their tribulations, although so far, in the United States the proportion of people infected with COVID-19 (3% as of mid-November 2020³) is dwarfed by the proportion infected with the influenza virus a century ago (30%). As of mid-November 2020, the number of global COVID-19 deaths (1.3 million³) was a tiny fraction of the 1918 influenza pandemic deaths (50 million worldwide and 675,000 in the United States⁴). Amazingly, researchers did not even know whether the killer germ was a virus or a bacterium until 1930, and it then took another 75 years to decode the genome of the influenza virus in 2005. In contrast, it took only a few short weeks to decode the genome of the virus that causes COVID-19 (severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2), and to begin developing multiple vaccines “at warp speed.” No vaccine or therapies were ever developed for victims of the 1918 pandemic.

An abundance of articles has been published about the pandemic since it ambushed us early in 2020, including many in Current Psychiatry.^5-21 But these publications don’t do justice to the emotional toll of living through the pandemic and witnessing its multi­farious repercussions (Table). It was truly bizarre and shocking for us to see our society and all its components literally come to a standstill, forcing the population to stop working, reducing us to simply “existing” inside our homes, with no socializing, traveling, or interacting. More unbearable than the sudden emptiness and paralysis was the unremitting fear, laced with a profound uncertainty of what was to come or when it would end.

Most psychiatrists are familiar with the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale,²² which contains 43 life events that cumulatively can progressively increase the odds of physical illness. It is likely that most of the world’s population will score very high on the Holmes and Rahe Stress Scale, which would predict an increased risk of medical illness, even after the pandemic subsides.

Exacerbating the situation is that hospitals and clinics had to shut down most of their operations to focus their resources on treating patients with COVID-19 in ICUs. This halted all routine screenings for cancer and heart, kidney, liver, lung, or brain diseases. In addition, diagnostic or therapeutic procedures such as endoscopies, colonoscopies, angiograms, or biopsies abruptly stopped, resulting in a surge of non–COVID-19 medical disorders and mortality as reported in several articles across many specialties.²³ Going forward, in addition to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality, there is a significant likelihood of an increase in myriad medical disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic is obviously inflicting both direct and indirect casualties as it stretches into the next year and perhaps longer. The only hope for the community of nations is the rapid arrival of evidence-based treatments and vaccine(s).

Continue to: A progression of relentless stress

A progression of relentless stress

At the core of this pandemic is relentless stress. When it began in early 2020, the pandemic ignited an acute stress reaction due to the fear of death and the oddness of being isolated at home. Aggravating the acute stress was the realization that life as we knew it suddenly disappeared and all business or social activities had come to a screeching halt. It was almost surreal when streets usually bustling with human activity (such as Times Square in New York or Michigan Avenue in Chicago) became completely deserted and eerily silent. In addition, more stress was generated from watching television or scrolling through social media and being inundated with morbid and frightening news and updates about the number of individuals who became infected or died, and the official projections of tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of fatalities. Further intensifying the stress was hearing that there was a shortage of personal protective equipment (even masks), a lack of ventilators, and the absence of any medications to fight the overwhelming viral infection. Especially stressed were the front-line physicians and nurses, who heroically transcended their fears to save their patients’ lives. The sight of refrigerated trucks serving as temporary morgues outside hospital doors was chilling. The world became a macabre place where people died in hospitals without any relative to hold their hands or comfort them, and then were buried quickly without any formal funerals due to mandatory social distancing. The inability of families to grieve for their loved ones added another poignant layer of sadness and distress to the survivors who were unable to bid their loved ones goodbye. This was a jarring example of adding insult to injury.

With the protraction of the exceptional changes imposed by the pandemic, the acute stress reaction transmuted into posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on a wide scale. Millions of previously healthy individuals began to succumb to the symptoms of PTSD (irritability, hypervigilance, intrusive thoughts, avoidance, insomnia, and bad dreams). The heaviest burden was inflicted on our patients, across all ages, with preexisting psychiatric conditions, who comprise approximately 25% of the population per the classic Epidemiological Catchment Area (ECA) study.²⁴ These vulnerable patients, whom we see in our clinics and hospitals every day, had a significant exacerbation of their psychopathology, including anxiety, depression, psychosis, binge eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, alcohol and substance use disorders, child abuse, and intimate partner violence.^25,26 The saving grace was the rapid adoption of telepsychiatry, which our psychiatric patients rapidly accepted. Many of them found it more convenient than dressing and driving and parking at the clinic. It also enabled psychiatrists to obtain useful collateral information from family members or partners.

If something good comes from this catastrophic social stress that emotionally hobbled the entire population, it would be the dilution of the stigma of mental illness because everyone has become more empathic due to their personal experience. Optimistically, this may also help expedite true health care parity for psychiatric brain disorders. And perhaps the government may see the need to train more psychiatrists and fund a higher number of residency stipends to all training programs.

Quo vadis COVID-19?

So, looking through the dense fog of the pandemic fatigue, what will 2021 bring us? Will waves of COVID-19 lead to pandemic exhaustion? Will the frayed public mental health care system be able to handle the surge of frayed nerves? Will social distancing intensify the widespread emotional disquietude? Will the children be able to manifest resilience and avoid disabling psychiatric disorders? Will the survivors of COVID-19 infections suffer from post–COVD-19 neuropsychiatric and other medical sequelae? Will efficacious therapies and vaccines emerge to blunt the spread of the virus? Will we all be able to gather in stadiums and arenas to enjoy sporting events, shows, and concerts? Will eating at our favorite restaurants become routine again? Will engaged couples be able to organize well-attended weddings and receptions? Will airplanes and hotels be fully booked again? Importantly, will all children and college students be able to resume their education in person and socialize ad lib? Will we be able to shed our masks and hug each other hello and goodbye? Will scientific journals and social media cover a wide array of topics again as before? Will the number of deaths dwindle to zero, and will we return to worrying mainly about the usual seasonal flu? Will everyone be able to leave home and go to work again?

I hope that the thick dust of this 2020 viral asteroid will settle in 2021, and that “normalcy” is eventually restored to our lives, allowing us to deal with other ongoing stresses such as social unrest and political hyperpartisanship.

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Surprisingly, in the United States, the most common cancer associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) is oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (SCC), with one study reporting 15,479 cases among men and 3,428 cases among women in 2015.¹ In the same year, the investigators reported 11,788 cases of cervical cancer.¹ A public health concern is that cases of oropharyngeal SCC are increasing, while cases of cervical cancer are decreasing. From 1999 to 2015, the rate of oropharyngeal SCC increased annually among both men and women, at rates of 2.7% and 0.8% per year, respectively. By contrast, the rate of cervical cancer decreased by 1.6% per year.¹

Although the incidence of HPV-negative oropharyngeal SCC (cases associated with cigarette smoking) has declined by 50% from 1988 to 2004, the incidence of HPV-positive oropharyngeal SCC has increased by 225%, with much of the increase occurring among young, white men.² HPV infection is a major cause of oropharyngeal SCC at the base of the tongue and tonsils, but not in the soft palate or oropharyngeal walls.³

Most physicians and parents recognize that the 9-valent (9v)HPV vaccine prevents the majority of cervical cancers and precancers in women. Far fewer people realize that there is an important opportunity to prevent a large number of oropharyngeal cancers by improving 9vHPV vaccination in men and women.

Which HPV types are associated with oropharyngeal cancer?

HPV16 is the most common HPV type associated with oropharyngeal SCC. Among these cancer types, greater than 80% harbor HPV16, with greater than 90% harboring HPV16 or 18 and less than 10% of tumors associated with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, or 58.^4-7

The high prevalence of HPV16 in patients with oropharyngeal cancer raises the question of the HPV status of the intimate partner of the index patient. In one study of 164 people with HPV detected in their oropharyngeal, the partner of the index patient had a low prevalence of high-risk HPV types (1.2%) in oral rinse and gargle samples, similar to the rate in the general population (1.3%).⁷ This finding is reassuring and suggests that intimate partners of patients with HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer effectively clear high-risk HPV virus from the oropharynx. The HPV status of the genital tissue of the intimate partner of an index patient with oropharyngeal SCC has not been adequately studied.

Men are more likely than women to harbor oral HPV

Among a sample of 5,501 men and women aged 14 to 69 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, oral rinses were obtained and analyzed for the presence of HPV.⁸ The prevalence of any oral HPV and any oral high-risk HPV was 6.9% and 3.7%, respectively. Oral HPV-16 was detected in 1.6% of men and 0.3% of women. The prevalence of HPV was higher among current smokers, heavy alcohol drinkers, and people with a history of a greater number of sexual partners. In men and women reporting more than 20 lifetime sexual partners, the prevalence of oral HPV was 20%.

In a study of 2,627 men and women aged 18 to 33 years, the prevalence of oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus those unvaccinated (0.11% and 1.6%, respectively; P = .008).⁹ Among men, oral HPV 16/18/6/11 was lower among those vaccinated versus unvaccinated (0.0% and 2.13%, respectively; P = .007).⁹ The results of this observational study support the important role of vaccination in reducing oral HPV infection.

Continue to: Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer...

Vaccinate boys and girls to prevent cancer

Most population studies report that males are less likely to receive an HPV vaccine than females. For example, based on the National Health Interview Survey of people aged 18 to 26, the percentage of women who self-reported receiving at least one dose of HPV vaccine was 37% in 2013 and 54% in 2018.¹⁰ By contrast, among men, the rates of self-reported vaccination were much lower—8% in 2013 and 27% in 2018.¹⁰

The percentage of women who received the recommended number of doses of HPV vaccine (see “9vHPV vaccine: Indications and immunization schedule”) was 26% in 2013 and 35% in 2018.¹⁰ For men, these percentages were 2% in 2013 and 9% in 2018.¹⁰ These data indicate that, compared with women, men are less likely to receive an HPV vaccination and far less likely to have received the recommended number of doses.

It is heartening that there has been a slow and steady increase in the prevalence of HPV vaccination. In fact, increasing the HPV vaccination rate among both boys and girls has the potential to markedly reduce the incidence of oropharyngeal cancer.

The reasons for the female-male gap in vaccination rates are not fully characterized. For one, parental awareness of the importance of HPV vaccination to prevent cancer among men is limited, and represents an important opportunity for additional public health education. In a qualitative interview study of mothers with children aged 11 to 19, the investigators reported that most mothers were aware that HPV vaccination could prevent cervical cancer in women, but most mothers did not know that HPV causes cancer of the mouth and that vaccination could prevent oropharyngeal cancer in boys and girls.¹¹ Because of this lack of knowledge, the mothers did not think their sons needed to have an HPV vaccine. The research report is aptly titled, “I don’t think he needs the HPV vaccine cause boys can’t have cervical cancer.”¹¹

Clinicians are highly influential in guiding parents to accept HPV vaccination of their children. Offering consistent messaging to parents that HPV vaccination prevents cancer in both women and men, and reducing the out-of-pocket cost of vaccination surely will result in an increase in the vaccination rate of boys and girls. ●

Let’s face it: The greatest unmet need in psychiatry is discovering a treatment for the infamous syndrome of toxic political extremism. Its ugly symptoms include blind hatred, visceral malice, bigotry, vandalism, hypocrisy, racism, hubris, intransigence, narcissism, demagoguery, mutual contempt, and intense schadenfreude.

This corrosive affliction has engulfed and polluted our society, and compromised our well-being and quality of life. Treating this malignant syndrome is beyond the reach of psychopharmacology!

Thus, we psychiatrists should focus on the mood, psychotic, anxiety, and addiction syndromes that we encounter daily in our hospitals, clinics, and private offices. They affect tens of millions of patients. We currently have many psychotropic medications for these conditions. When combined with psychotherapy, the resulting synergy can be magical and immensely gratifying. However, some of those agents have limited efficacy due to the extensive heterogeneity of syndromes such as schizophrenia or depression, which are often confounded with comorbidities. A perfect balance between efficacy, tolerability, and safety are often hard to come by in pharmacotherapy.

The most glaring psychopharmacologic unmet need is that 80% of DSM disorders still do not have a single FDA-approved (evidence-based) medication.¹ It will take decades, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the motivation of the often-maligned pharmaceutical industry (indispensable, because they are the only entity with the large R&D infrastructure to develop medications for psychiatry). Both academic and clinical psychiatrists must advise pharmaceutical companies about the unmet needs in our field and urge them to develop novel pharmacotherapies to address the gaps in the clinical care of psychiatric patients.

An inventory of unmet needs

With that in mind, here is a list of unmet needs I have been thinking about lately, and hoping that they will be resolved to help our patients achieve better clinical and functional outcomes.

Rapid-onset antipsychotics. The discovery that ketamine can rapidly convert refractory patients who are chronically depressed or suicidal to normal mood within a few hours shattered the dogma that weeks and months are needed for severe depression to improve, let alone achieve full remission. There is a similar dogma about psychosis requiring a protracted duration of antipsychotic treatment to attain significant impact. A rapid-acting antipsychotic agent would represent a major advance in psychiatry and its pharmaco-economic benefits would be substantial, given the high cost of inpatient hospitalization. Just as neurobiologic research guided the discovery of ketamine as a dramatic paradigm shift in treating depression, targeted research, especially focusing on glutamate pathways, may help identify a rapid-onset agent, whether oral, intranasal, IV, or even (why not) intrathecal. Research is known to enhance serendipity, which has been kind to psychiatry and has led to the discovery of several pharmacologic therapies in psychiatry, such as chlorpromazine, monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants, and lithium.

Long-acting antidepressants and anxiolytics. This can be regarded as low-hanging fruit. Several technologies have been developed for long-acting formulations, yet they have been exploited mainly for antipsychotic medications. Some of these technologies can be employed to convert commonly used antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) into long-acting antidepressants that can also reduce anxiety. Nonadherence among patients with depression is quite common, and relapses may lead to suicide attempts. The use of injectable, long-acting antidepressants can also reduce the incidence of overdoses because the patient will not have possession of potentially fatal pills.

Continue to: Long-acting mood stabilizers

Long-acting mood stabilizers. The rationale for long-acting mood stabilizers is the same as for long-acting antidepressants. Patients with bipolar disorder are known to stop taking their medications because they miss their “highs.” Some long-acting antipsychotics are approved for bipolar disorder, but these are often associated with adverse effects, such as metabolic dysregulation, extrapyramidal symptoms, and tardive dyskinesia. Mood stabilizers are essential for the bipolar spectrum.

A “real” treatment for alcohol use disorders that eliminates craving for alcohol. Alcoholism is associated with more than 100 medical complications and is one of the leading causes of disability in the world. It is frustrating that very few drug companies have focused on this widely prevalent brain disorder, which is also a common comorbid condition in many psychiatric syndromes.

Treatment-resistance pharmacotherapy solutions. All psychiatric syndromes are heterogeneous and contain ≥1 subgroups (biotypes) that fail to respond to what is considered the “standard” psychopharmacologic treatment (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anti-obsessive medications). Technically, those so-called treatment-resistant subtypes need medications with a different mechanism of action. For example, clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ketamine for treatment-resistant depression provide proof that treatment resistance is treatable but by a mechanism of action that is completely different from that of standard therapies, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor modulation. And there is a need for more than one pharmacotherapy for treatment resistance because some patients do not respond to either clozapine or ketamine.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia cause significant functional disability and are well known to be a major unmet need. Some promising data are emerging on agents such as pimavanserin, cariprazine, and roluperidone, which is encouraging, but nothing is approved yet.

Cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, both neurocognition and social cognition, are another major unmet need that impair function in many patients. Many attempts to develop a pharmacologic treatment for these serious cognitive impairments have been made, but several candidates that initially appeared promising have bitten the dust. A focus on modulating the glutamate NMDA receptor may eventually lead to a breakthrough, and that may also help patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, both of whom also have cognitive deficits in several domains, albeit less severe than those experienced by patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: Personality disorders

Personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorder, are very challenging to treat pharmacologically despite their prevalence and serious disruption to people’s lives. Hardly any FDA clinical trials have been conducted on any personality disorder. It is an unmet need that all psychiatrists would love to see addressed. But the mythical notion that personality disorders are untreatable may be an impediment in the pursuit of novel pharmacotherapy for borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, or schizotypal personality disorders, and other disorders. Heart attacks and religious conversion often change the baseline personality dramatically.

Childhood disorders. Apart from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), very few childhood psychiatric disorders have an FDA-approved medication. Why do drug companies avoid conducting controlled clinical trials in children age <10 who have autism, spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and other disorders? Effective pharmacotherapy for these children can be regarded as a desirable early intervention that may short-circuit their progression to serious adult psychopathology.

Parsimonious psychopharmacology for the treatment of trans-diagnostic psychiatric disorders. Recent research strongly suggests there is a strong overlap among psychiatric conditions, genetically, clinically, and biologically.^2,3 For example, bipolar disorder is frequently accompanied by anxiety or substance use, patients with schizophrenia often experience anxiety, depression, or substance use, and ADHD has been found to share genes with autism.^4,5

Eating disorders. There are no truly efficacious pharmacologic treatments for anorexia or bulimia nervosa. Research in this area is thin, and needs to be beefed up.

Sexual disorders. A huge unmet need exists for the pharmacotherapy of many sexual disorders that can have serious legal consequences (paraphilias) or quality-of-life repercussions (low sexual desire and orgasm disorders).

Continue to: A coordinated effort

A coordinated effort

It will take a massive collaboration among multiple stakeholders to launch the herculean process of addressing the unmet needs of all the above psychiatric disorders. This includes:

• the pharmaceutical industry (to provide the massive financial investment and R&D expertise)
• the federal government (to provide incentives)
• the FDA (to allow novel clinical trial designs)
• academic psychiatrists (to conduct research to discover the pathophysiology of psychiatric diseases)
• clinical psychiatrists (to provide consultations and advise about the clinical gaps in current psychopharmacological treatments)
• psychiatric patients (who are needed to volunteer for large-scale clinical trials).

This will be a veritable “psychiatric Manhattan Project” to advance the treatment of numerous psychiatric illnesses. The greatest benefit of discovering cures for disabling mental disorders is the evaporation of the virulent stigma that continues to plague our patients.

As for the political extremism that has corroded our society, it may be beyond pharmacologic redemption. An antidote to the “kool aid” has not yet been invented…

Let’s face it: The greatest unmet need in psychiatry is discovering a treatment for the infamous syndrome of toxic political extremism. Its ugly symptoms include blind hatred, visceral malice, bigotry, vandalism, hypocrisy, racism, hubris, intransigence, narcissism, demagoguery, mutual contempt, and intense schadenfreude.

This corrosive affliction has engulfed and polluted our society, and compromised our well-being and quality of life. Treating this malignant syndrome is beyond the reach of psychopharmacology!

Thus, we psychiatrists should focus on the mood, psychotic, anxiety, and addiction syndromes that we encounter daily in our hospitals, clinics, and private offices. They affect tens of millions of patients. We currently have many psychotropic medications for these conditions. When combined with psychotherapy, the resulting synergy can be magical and immensely gratifying. However, some of those agents have limited efficacy due to the extensive heterogeneity of syndromes such as schizophrenia or depression, which are often confounded with comorbidities. A perfect balance between efficacy, tolerability, and safety are often hard to come by in pharmacotherapy.

The most glaring psychopharmacologic unmet need is that 80% of DSM disorders still do not have a single FDA-approved (evidence-based) medication.¹ It will take decades, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the motivation of the often-maligned pharmaceutical industry (indispensable, because they are the only entity with the large R&D infrastructure to develop medications for psychiatry). Both academic and clinical psychiatrists must advise pharmaceutical companies about the unmet needs in our field and urge them to develop novel pharmacotherapies to address the gaps in the clinical care of psychiatric patients.

An inventory of unmet needs

With that in mind, here is a list of unmet needs I have been thinking about lately, and hoping that they will be resolved to help our patients achieve better clinical and functional outcomes.

Rapid-onset antipsychotics. The discovery that ketamine can rapidly convert refractory patients who are chronically depressed or suicidal to normal mood within a few hours shattered the dogma that weeks and months are needed for severe depression to improve, let alone achieve full remission. There is a similar dogma about psychosis requiring a protracted duration of antipsychotic treatment to attain significant impact. A rapid-acting antipsychotic agent would represent a major advance in psychiatry and its pharmaco-economic benefits would be substantial, given the high cost of inpatient hospitalization. Just as neurobiologic research guided the discovery of ketamine as a dramatic paradigm shift in treating depression, targeted research, especially focusing on glutamate pathways, may help identify a rapid-onset agent, whether oral, intranasal, IV, or even (why not) intrathecal. Research is known to enhance serendipity, which has been kind to psychiatry and has led to the discovery of several pharmacologic therapies in psychiatry, such as chlorpromazine, monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants, and lithium.

Long-acting antidepressants and anxiolytics. This can be regarded as low-hanging fruit. Several technologies have been developed for long-acting formulations, yet they have been exploited mainly for antipsychotic medications. Some of these technologies can be employed to convert commonly used antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) into long-acting antidepressants that can also reduce anxiety. Nonadherence among patients with depression is quite common, and relapses may lead to suicide attempts. The use of injectable, long-acting antidepressants can also reduce the incidence of overdoses because the patient will not have possession of potentially fatal pills.

Continue to: Long-acting mood stabilizers

Long-acting mood stabilizers. The rationale for long-acting mood stabilizers is the same as for long-acting antidepressants. Patients with bipolar disorder are known to stop taking their medications because they miss their “highs.” Some long-acting antipsychotics are approved for bipolar disorder, but these are often associated with adverse effects, such as metabolic dysregulation, extrapyramidal symptoms, and tardive dyskinesia. Mood stabilizers are essential for the bipolar spectrum.

A “real” treatment for alcohol use disorders that eliminates craving for alcohol. Alcoholism is associated with more than 100 medical complications and is one of the leading causes of disability in the world. It is frustrating that very few drug companies have focused on this widely prevalent brain disorder, which is also a common comorbid condition in many psychiatric syndromes.

Treatment-resistance pharmacotherapy solutions. All psychiatric syndromes are heterogeneous and contain ≥1 subgroups (biotypes) that fail to respond to what is considered the “standard” psychopharmacologic treatment (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anti-obsessive medications). Technically, those so-called treatment-resistant subtypes need medications with a different mechanism of action. For example, clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ketamine for treatment-resistant depression provide proof that treatment resistance is treatable but by a mechanism of action that is completely different from that of standard therapies, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor modulation. And there is a need for more than one pharmacotherapy for treatment resistance because some patients do not respond to either clozapine or ketamine.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia cause significant functional disability and are well known to be a major unmet need. Some promising data are emerging on agents such as pimavanserin, cariprazine, and roluperidone, which is encouraging, but nothing is approved yet.

Cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, both neurocognition and social cognition, are another major unmet need that impair function in many patients. Many attempts to develop a pharmacologic treatment for these serious cognitive impairments have been made, but several candidates that initially appeared promising have bitten the dust. A focus on modulating the glutamate NMDA receptor may eventually lead to a breakthrough, and that may also help patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, both of whom also have cognitive deficits in several domains, albeit less severe than those experienced by patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: Personality disorders

Personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorder, are very challenging to treat pharmacologically despite their prevalence and serious disruption to people’s lives. Hardly any FDA clinical trials have been conducted on any personality disorder. It is an unmet need that all psychiatrists would love to see addressed. But the mythical notion that personality disorders are untreatable may be an impediment in the pursuit of novel pharmacotherapy for borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, or schizotypal personality disorders, and other disorders. Heart attacks and religious conversion often change the baseline personality dramatically.

Childhood disorders. Apart from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), very few childhood psychiatric disorders have an FDA-approved medication. Why do drug companies avoid conducting controlled clinical trials in children age <10 who have autism, spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and other disorders? Effective pharmacotherapy for these children can be regarded as a desirable early intervention that may short-circuit their progression to serious adult psychopathology.

Parsimonious psychopharmacology for the treatment of trans-diagnostic psychiatric disorders. Recent research strongly suggests there is a strong overlap among psychiatric conditions, genetically, clinically, and biologically.^2,3 For example, bipolar disorder is frequently accompanied by anxiety or substance use, patients with schizophrenia often experience anxiety, depression, or substance use, and ADHD has been found to share genes with autism.^4,5

Eating disorders. There are no truly efficacious pharmacologic treatments for anorexia or bulimia nervosa. Research in this area is thin, and needs to be beefed up.

Sexual disorders. A huge unmet need exists for the pharmacotherapy of many sexual disorders that can have serious legal consequences (paraphilias) or quality-of-life repercussions (low sexual desire and orgasm disorders).

Continue to: A coordinated effort

A coordinated effort

It will take a massive collaboration among multiple stakeholders to launch the herculean process of addressing the unmet needs of all the above psychiatric disorders. This includes:

• the pharmaceutical industry (to provide the massive financial investment and R&D expertise)
• the federal government (to provide incentives)
• the FDA (to allow novel clinical trial designs)
• academic psychiatrists (to conduct research to discover the pathophysiology of psychiatric diseases)
• clinical psychiatrists (to provide consultations and advise about the clinical gaps in current psychopharmacological treatments)
• psychiatric patients (who are needed to volunteer for large-scale clinical trials).

This will be a veritable “psychiatric Manhattan Project” to advance the treatment of numerous psychiatric illnesses. The greatest benefit of discovering cures for disabling mental disorders is the evaporation of the virulent stigma that continues to plague our patients.

As for the political extremism that has corroded our society, it may be beyond pharmacologic redemption. An antidote to the “kool aid” has not yet been invented…

Let’s face it: The greatest unmet need in psychiatry is discovering a treatment for the infamous syndrome of toxic political extremism. Its ugly symptoms include blind hatred, visceral malice, bigotry, vandalism, hypocrisy, racism, hubris, intransigence, narcissism, demagoguery, mutual contempt, and intense schadenfreude.

This corrosive affliction has engulfed and polluted our society, and compromised our well-being and quality of life. Treating this malignant syndrome is beyond the reach of psychopharmacology!

Thus, we psychiatrists should focus on the mood, psychotic, anxiety, and addiction syndromes that we encounter daily in our hospitals, clinics, and private offices. They affect tens of millions of patients. We currently have many psychotropic medications for these conditions. When combined with psychotherapy, the resulting synergy can be magical and immensely gratifying. However, some of those agents have limited efficacy due to the extensive heterogeneity of syndromes such as schizophrenia or depression, which are often confounded with comorbidities. A perfect balance between efficacy, tolerability, and safety are often hard to come by in pharmacotherapy.

The most glaring psychopharmacologic unmet need is that 80% of DSM disorders still do not have a single FDA-approved (evidence-based) medication.¹ It will take decades, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the motivation of the often-maligned pharmaceutical industry (indispensable, because they are the only entity with the large R&D infrastructure to develop medications for psychiatry). Both academic and clinical psychiatrists must advise pharmaceutical companies about the unmet needs in our field and urge them to develop novel pharmacotherapies to address the gaps in the clinical care of psychiatric patients.

An inventory of unmet needs

With that in mind, here is a list of unmet needs I have been thinking about lately, and hoping that they will be resolved to help our patients achieve better clinical and functional outcomes.

Rapid-onset antipsychotics. The discovery that ketamine can rapidly convert refractory patients who are chronically depressed or suicidal to normal mood within a few hours shattered the dogma that weeks and months are needed for severe depression to improve, let alone achieve full remission. There is a similar dogma about psychosis requiring a protracted duration of antipsychotic treatment to attain significant impact. A rapid-acting antipsychotic agent would represent a major advance in psychiatry and its pharmaco-economic benefits would be substantial, given the high cost of inpatient hospitalization. Just as neurobiologic research guided the discovery of ketamine as a dramatic paradigm shift in treating depression, targeted research, especially focusing on glutamate pathways, may help identify a rapid-onset agent, whether oral, intranasal, IV, or even (why not) intrathecal. Research is known to enhance serendipity, which has been kind to psychiatry and has led to the discovery of several pharmacologic therapies in psychiatry, such as chlorpromazine, monoamine oxidase inhibitor antidepressants, and lithium.

Long-acting antidepressants and anxiolytics. This can be regarded as low-hanging fruit. Several technologies have been developed for long-acting formulations, yet they have been exploited mainly for antipsychotic medications. Some of these technologies can be employed to convert commonly used antidepressants (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) into long-acting antidepressants that can also reduce anxiety. Nonadherence among patients with depression is quite common, and relapses may lead to suicide attempts. The use of injectable, long-acting antidepressants can also reduce the incidence of overdoses because the patient will not have possession of potentially fatal pills.

Continue to: Long-acting mood stabilizers

Long-acting mood stabilizers. The rationale for long-acting mood stabilizers is the same as for long-acting antidepressants. Patients with bipolar disorder are known to stop taking their medications because they miss their “highs.” Some long-acting antipsychotics are approved for bipolar disorder, but these are often associated with adverse effects, such as metabolic dysregulation, extrapyramidal symptoms, and tardive dyskinesia. Mood stabilizers are essential for the bipolar spectrum.

A “real” treatment for alcohol use disorders that eliminates craving for alcohol. Alcoholism is associated with more than 100 medical complications and is one of the leading causes of disability in the world. It is frustrating that very few drug companies have focused on this widely prevalent brain disorder, which is also a common comorbid condition in many psychiatric syndromes.

Treatment-resistance pharmacotherapy solutions. All psychiatric syndromes are heterogeneous and contain ≥1 subgroups (biotypes) that fail to respond to what is considered the “standard” psychopharmacologic treatment (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, or anti-obsessive medications). Technically, those so-called treatment-resistant subtypes need medications with a different mechanism of action. For example, clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia and ketamine for treatment-resistant depression provide proof that treatment resistance is treatable but by a mechanism of action that is completely different from that of standard therapies, such as N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor modulation. And there is a need for more than one pharmacotherapy for treatment resistance because some patients do not respond to either clozapine or ketamine.

Negative symptoms of schizophrenia cause significant functional disability and are well known to be a major unmet need. Some promising data are emerging on agents such as pimavanserin, cariprazine, and roluperidone, which is encouraging, but nothing is approved yet.

Cognitive deficits of schizophrenia, both neurocognition and social cognition, are another major unmet need that impair function in many patients. Many attempts to develop a pharmacologic treatment for these serious cognitive impairments have been made, but several candidates that initially appeared promising have bitten the dust. A focus on modulating the glutamate NMDA receptor may eventually lead to a breakthrough, and that may also help patients with bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder, both of whom also have cognitive deficits in several domains, albeit less severe than those experienced by patients with schizophrenia.

Continue to: Personality disorders

Personality disorders, especially borderline personality disorder, are very challenging to treat pharmacologically despite their prevalence and serious disruption to people’s lives. Hardly any FDA clinical trials have been conducted on any personality disorder. It is an unmet need that all psychiatrists would love to see addressed. But the mythical notion that personality disorders are untreatable may be an impediment in the pursuit of novel pharmacotherapy for borderline, narcissistic, antisocial, or schizotypal personality disorders, and other disorders. Heart attacks and religious conversion often change the baseline personality dramatically.

Childhood disorders. Apart from attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), very few childhood psychiatric disorders have an FDA-approved medication. Why do drug companies avoid conducting controlled clinical trials in children age <10 who have autism, spectrum disorders, conduct disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, and other disorders? Effective pharmacotherapy for these children can be regarded as a desirable early intervention that may short-circuit their progression to serious adult psychopathology.

Parsimonious psychopharmacology for the treatment of trans-diagnostic psychiatric disorders. Recent research strongly suggests there is a strong overlap among psychiatric conditions, genetically, clinically, and biologically.^2,3 For example, bipolar disorder is frequently accompanied by anxiety or substance use, patients with schizophrenia often experience anxiety, depression, or substance use, and ADHD has been found to share genes with autism.^4,5

Eating disorders. There are no truly efficacious pharmacologic treatments for anorexia or bulimia nervosa. Research in this area is thin, and needs to be beefed up.

Sexual disorders. A huge unmet need exists for the pharmacotherapy of many sexual disorders that can have serious legal consequences (paraphilias) or quality-of-life repercussions (low sexual desire and orgasm disorders).

Continue to: A coordinated effort

A coordinated effort

It will take a massive collaboration among multiple stakeholders to launch the herculean process of addressing the unmet needs of all the above psychiatric disorders. This includes:

• the pharmaceutical industry (to provide the massive financial investment and R&D expertise)
• the federal government (to provide incentives)
• the FDA (to allow novel clinical trial designs)
• academic psychiatrists (to conduct research to discover the pathophysiology of psychiatric diseases)
• clinical psychiatrists (to provide consultations and advise about the clinical gaps in current psychopharmacological treatments)
• psychiatric patients (who are needed to volunteer for large-scale clinical trials).

This will be a veritable “psychiatric Manhattan Project” to advance the treatment of numerous psychiatric illnesses. The greatest benefit of discovering cures for disabling mental disorders is the evaporation of the virulent stigma that continues to plague our patients.

As for the political extremism that has corroded our society, it may be beyond pharmacologic redemption. An antidote to the “kool aid” has not yet been invented…

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

During the April 2020 peak of patient admissions to our hospital caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), we severely limited the number of surgical procedures performed to conserve health system resources. During this stressful time, some administrators and physicians began categorizing operations for cancer as "elective" procedures that could be postponed for months. Personally, I think the use of elective to describe cancer surgery is not optimal, even during a pandemic. In reality, the surgeries for patients with cancer were being postponed to ensure that services were available for patients with severe and critical COVID-19 disease, not because the surgeries were "elective." The health system leaders were making the ra­tional decision to prioritize the needs of patients with COVID-19 infections over the needs of patients with cancer. However, they were using an inappropriate description of the rationale for postponing the surgery for patients with cancer—an intellectual short-cut.

This experience prompted me to explore all the medical interventions commonly described as elective. Surprisingly, among medical specialists, obstetricians excel in using the adjective elective to describe our important work. For example, in the medical record we commonly use terms such as “elective induction of labor,” “elective cesarean delivery” (CD) and “elective termination of pregnancy.” I believe it would advance our field if obstetricians stopped using the term elective to describe the important health services we provide.

Stop using the term “elective induction of labor”

Ghartey and Macones recently advocated for all obstetricians to stop using the term elective when describing induction of labor.¹ The ARRIVE trial (A Randomized Trial of Induction vs Expectant Management)² demonstrated that, among nulliparous women at 39 weeks’ gestation, induction of labor resulted in a lower CD rate than expectant management (18.6% vs 22.2%, respectively; relative risk, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.93). These findings indicate that induction of labor is not elective because it provides a clear health benefit over the alternative of expectant management. Given current expert guidance, induction of labor prior to 39 weeks’ gestation must be based on an accepted medical indication and provide a health benefit; hence, these inductions are medically indicated. Similarly, since induction of labor at 39 weeks’ gestation also provides a clear health benefit it is also medically indicated and not “elective.” Ghartey and Macones conclude¹:

"The words we choose to
describe medical interventions
matter. They send a message
to patients, physicians, nurses,
and hospital administrators.
When the term 'elective' is applied to a medical intervention,
it implies that it is not really
necessary. That is certainly not
the case when it comes to 39-
week nulliparous induction. The
ARRIVE trial provides grade A
(good and consistent) evidence
that labor induction provided
benefit with no harm to women
and their infants. These inductions are not 'elective'."

An alternative descriptor is “medically indicated” induction.

Continue to: Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”...

Stop using the term “elective cesarean delivery”

I recently searched PubMed for publications using the key words, “elective cesarean delivery,” and more than 7,000 publications were identified by the National Library of Medicine. “Elective cesarean delivery” is clearly an important term used by obstetrical authorities. What do we mean by elective CD?

At 39 weeks’ gestation, a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman has a limited number of options:

1. induction of labor
2. expectant management awaiting the onset of labor
3. scheduled CD before the onset of labor.

For a low-risk pregnant woman at 39 weeks’ gestation, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends vaginal delivery because it best balances the risks and benefits for the woman and newborn.³ When a low-risk nulliparous pregnant woman asks a clinician about a scheduled CD, we are trained to thoroughly explore the reasons for the woman’s request, including her intellectual, fact-based, concerns about labor and vaginal birth and her emotional reaction to the thought of a vaginal or cesarean birth. In this situation the clinician will provide information about the risks and benefits of vaginal versus CD. In the vast majority of situations, the pregnant woman will agree to attempting vaginal delivery. In one study of 458,767 births, only 0.2% of women choose a “maternal request cesarean delivery.”⁴

After thorough counseling, if a woman and her clinician jointly agree to schedule a primary CD it will be the result of hours of intensive discussion, not an imprudent and hasty decision. In this case, the delivery is best characterized as a “maternal request cesarean delivery,” not an “elective” CD.

Stop using the terms “elective termination of pregnancy” and “elective abortion”

Janiak and Goldberg have advocated for the elimination of the phrase elective abortion.⁵ They write⁵:

"Support for abortion varies
depending on the reason for
the abortion—whether it is
'elective' or 'indicated.' In the
case of abortion, these terms
generally differentiate between
women seeking abortion for
reasons of maternal or fetal
health (an 'indicated abortion')
defined in contrast to women
seeking abortion for other
reasons (an 'elective abortion').
We argue that such a distinction is impossible to operationalize in a just manner. The use
of the phrase 'elective abortion'
promotes the institutionalization of a false hierarchy of need
among abortion patients."

My experience is that pregnant women never seek an abortion based on whimsy. Most pregnant women who consider an abortion struggle greatly with the choice, using reason and judgment to arrive at their final decision. The choice to seek an abortion is always a difficult one, influenced by a constellation of hard facts that impact the woman’s life. Using the term elective to describe an abortion implies a moral judgment and stigmatizes the choice to have an abortion. Janiak and Goldberg conclude by recommending the elimination of the phrase 'elective abortion' in favor of the phrase “induced abortion.”⁵

Continue to: Time for change...

Time for change

Shockingly, in searching the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD10), the word elective is most commonly used in the context of health services provided to pregnant women, including: elective induction of labor (Z34.90), elective cesarean delivery (O82), elective termination of pregnancy (Z33.2), and elective fetal reduction (Z031.30X0). In ICD10, other specialties do not describe the scope of their health services with the adjective elective.

There are many definitions and interpretations of elective. The most benign use of the word in the context of surgery is to contrast procedures that can be scheduled in the future with those that need to be performed urgently. In this context elective only refers to the timing, not the medical necessity, of the procedure. By contrast, describing a procedure as elective may signal that it is not medically necessary and is being performed based on the capricious preference of the patient or physician. Given the confusion and misunderstanding that may be caused by describing our important health services as “elective,” I hope that we can permanently sunset use of the term. ●

It’s election season again. Every 4 years, October becomes the purgatory month of politics. But this year, it’s even more complicated, being juxtaposed against a chaotic mosaic of a viral pandemic, economic travails, social upheaval, and exceptionally toxic political hyperpartisanship.

The widespread expectation is that citizens will vote for their party’s candidates, but there is now a body of evidence suggesting that our brains may be pre-wired to be liberal or conservative.

Enter neuro-politics. This discipline is younger than neuro-economics, neuro-law, neuro-ethics, neuro-marketing, neuro-art, neuro-culture, or neuro-esthetics. Neuro-politics focuses on the intersection of politics with neuroscience.¹ However, there are many antecedents to neuro-politics reflected in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Niccolò Machiavelli, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Henri Bergson, William James, and others.

Neuro-politics attempts to generate data to answer a variety of questions about political behavior, such as:

• Is political orientation associated with differences in certain brain regions?
• Are there reliable neural biomarkers of political orientation?
• Is political orientation modifiable, and if so, why are some individuals ferociously entrenched to one political dogma while others are able to untether themselves and adopt another political doctrine?
• What are the brain characteristics of “swing voters” who may align themselves with different parties in different election cycles?
• Is there a “religification” of politics among the ardent fanatics who regard the tenets of their political beliefs as “articles of faith?”
• Is the brain modified by certain attributes (such as educational level, age, sex, marital status, race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation) that translate to political decision-making?
• Can neuro-politics explain the sprouting of psychiatric symptoms such as obsessions, anxiety, irritability, anger, hatred, and conspiracy theories?
• Is political extremism driven by cortical structures, limbic structures, or both?

Politics and the brain

Here is a brief review of some studies that examined the relationship of political orientation or voting behavior with brain structure and function:

1. Roger Sperry, the 1981 Nobel Laureate (for his studies on split-brain patients) reported that in patients who underwent callosotomy, both cerebral hemispheres gave the same ratings of politicians when their photos were shown to each hemisphere separately.²

2. A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study found that the faces of candidates activated participants’ ventromedial and anterior prefrontal cortices. Amygdala activation was associated with the intensity of the emotion.³

Continue to: A skin conductance...

3. A skin conductance study reported that politically liberal individuals had low reactivity to sudden noises and threatening stimuli, while conservative counterparts demonstrated high physiological reactions to noises and stimuli.⁴

4. Images of a losing candidate elicited greater activation on fMRI in the insula and ventral anterior cingulate compared to no activation by exposure to an image of the winning candidate.⁵

5. Another fMRI study found that “individualism” was associated with activation of the medial prefrontal cortex and temporo-parietal junction when participants listened to a set of political statements. On the other hand, “conservatism” activated the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while “radicalism” activated the ventral striatum and posterior cingulate.⁶

6. An EEG activity study of healthy individuals revealed desynchronization in the alpha band related to the politicians who lost simulated elections and were judged as “less trustworthy” when the participant watched their faces.⁷

7. A structural MRI study of young adults reported that liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate, while conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. The authors replicated their findings and concluded there is a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.⁸

Continue to: To examine the effect of...

8. To examine the effect of a “first impression” based on the physical appearance of candidates, researchers compared individuals with damage to the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) with a group that had frontal damage that spared the lateral OFC and another group of matched healthy volunteers. They used a simulated elections paradigm in which participants voted based solely on photographs of the candidates’ faces. Only the group with OFC damage was influenced by attractiveness, while those with an intact frontal lobe or non-OFC frontal damage relied on other data, such as competence.⁹ These researchers concluded that an intact OFC is necessary for political decision-making.

9. A study using cognitive tasks reported that liberals are more adept at dealing with novel information than conservatives.¹⁰

What part of your brain will you use?

Regardless of the data generated by the neuro-politics studies, the bottom line is: What part of your brain do you use when you cast your vote for an issue, a representative, a senator, or a president? Is it a purely intellectual decision (ie, cortical), or is it driven by visceral emotions (ie, limbic)? Do you believe that every single item in your party’s platform is right and virtuous, while every item in the other party’s platform is wrong and evil? Can you think of any redeeming feature of the candidate you hate or the party you despise?

One attribute that we psychiatrists possess by virtue of our training and clinical work is that we are able to transcend dichotomies and to perceive nuances and shades of gray about controversial issues. So I hope we employ the circuits of our brain where wisdom putatively resides¹¹ and which may develop further (via neuroplasticity) with the conduct of psychotherapy.¹² Those brain circuits include:

• prefrontal cortex (for emotional regulation, decision-making, and value relativism)
• lateral prefrontal cortex (to facilitate calculated, reason-based decision-making)
• medial prefrontal cortex (for emotional valence and pro-social attitudes and behaviors).

However, being human, it is quite likely that our amygdala may “seep through” and color our judgment and decisions. But let us try to cast a vote that is not only good for the country but also good for our patients, many of whom may not even be able to vote. Election season is a time to make a positive difference in our patients’ lives, not just ours. Let’s hope our brains exploit this unique opportunity.

It’s election season again. Every 4 years, October becomes the purgatory month of politics. But this year, it’s even more complicated, being juxtaposed against a chaotic mosaic of a viral pandemic, economic travails, social upheaval, and exceptionally toxic political hyperpartisanship.

The widespread expectation is that citizens will vote for their party’s candidates, but there is now a body of evidence suggesting that our brains may be pre-wired to be liberal or conservative.

Enter neuro-politics. This discipline is younger than neuro-economics, neuro-law, neuro-ethics, neuro-marketing, neuro-art, neuro-culture, or neuro-esthetics. Neuro-politics focuses on the intersection of politics with neuroscience.¹ However, there are many antecedents to neuro-politics reflected in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Niccolò Machiavelli, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Henri Bergson, William James, and others.

Neuro-politics attempts to generate data to answer a variety of questions about political behavior, such as:

• Is political orientation associated with differences in certain brain regions?
• Are there reliable neural biomarkers of political orientation?
• Is political orientation modifiable, and if so, why are some individuals ferociously entrenched to one political dogma while others are able to untether themselves and adopt another political doctrine?
• What are the brain characteristics of “swing voters” who may align themselves with different parties in different election cycles?
• Is there a “religification” of politics among the ardent fanatics who regard the tenets of their political beliefs as “articles of faith?”
• Is the brain modified by certain attributes (such as educational level, age, sex, marital status, race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation) that translate to political decision-making?
• Can neuro-politics explain the sprouting of psychiatric symptoms such as obsessions, anxiety, irritability, anger, hatred, and conspiracy theories?
• Is political extremism driven by cortical structures, limbic structures, or both?

Politics and the brain

Here is a brief review of some studies that examined the relationship of political orientation or voting behavior with brain structure and function:

1. Roger Sperry, the 1981 Nobel Laureate (for his studies on split-brain patients) reported that in patients who underwent callosotomy, both cerebral hemispheres gave the same ratings of politicians when their photos were shown to each hemisphere separately.²

2. A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study found that the faces of candidates activated participants’ ventromedial and anterior prefrontal cortices. Amygdala activation was associated with the intensity of the emotion.³

Continue to: A skin conductance...

3. A skin conductance study reported that politically liberal individuals had low reactivity to sudden noises and threatening stimuli, while conservative counterparts demonstrated high physiological reactions to noises and stimuli.⁴

4. Images of a losing candidate elicited greater activation on fMRI in the insula and ventral anterior cingulate compared to no activation by exposure to an image of the winning candidate.⁵

5. Another fMRI study found that “individualism” was associated with activation of the medial prefrontal cortex and temporo-parietal junction when participants listened to a set of political statements. On the other hand, “conservatism” activated the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while “radicalism” activated the ventral striatum and posterior cingulate.⁶

6. An EEG activity study of healthy individuals revealed desynchronization in the alpha band related to the politicians who lost simulated elections and were judged as “less trustworthy” when the participant watched their faces.⁷

7. A structural MRI study of young adults reported that liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate, while conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. The authors replicated their findings and concluded there is a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.⁸

Continue to: To examine the effect of...

8. To examine the effect of a “first impression” based on the physical appearance of candidates, researchers compared individuals with damage to the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) with a group that had frontal damage that spared the lateral OFC and another group of matched healthy volunteers. They used a simulated elections paradigm in which participants voted based solely on photographs of the candidates’ faces. Only the group with OFC damage was influenced by attractiveness, while those with an intact frontal lobe or non-OFC frontal damage relied on other data, such as competence.⁹ These researchers concluded that an intact OFC is necessary for political decision-making.

9. A study using cognitive tasks reported that liberals are more adept at dealing with novel information than conservatives.¹⁰

What part of your brain will you use?

Regardless of the data generated by the neuro-politics studies, the bottom line is: What part of your brain do you use when you cast your vote for an issue, a representative, a senator, or a president? Is it a purely intellectual decision (ie, cortical), or is it driven by visceral emotions (ie, limbic)? Do you believe that every single item in your party’s platform is right and virtuous, while every item in the other party’s platform is wrong and evil? Can you think of any redeeming feature of the candidate you hate or the party you despise?

One attribute that we psychiatrists possess by virtue of our training and clinical work is that we are able to transcend dichotomies and to perceive nuances and shades of gray about controversial issues. So I hope we employ the circuits of our brain where wisdom putatively resides¹¹ and which may develop further (via neuroplasticity) with the conduct of psychotherapy.¹² Those brain circuits include:

• prefrontal cortex (for emotional regulation, decision-making, and value relativism)
• lateral prefrontal cortex (to facilitate calculated, reason-based decision-making)
• medial prefrontal cortex (for emotional valence and pro-social attitudes and behaviors).

However, being human, it is quite likely that our amygdala may “seep through” and color our judgment and decisions. But let us try to cast a vote that is not only good for the country but also good for our patients, many of whom may not even be able to vote. Election season is a time to make a positive difference in our patients’ lives, not just ours. Let’s hope our brains exploit this unique opportunity.

It’s election season again. Every 4 years, October becomes the purgatory month of politics. But this year, it’s even more complicated, being juxtaposed against a chaotic mosaic of a viral pandemic, economic travails, social upheaval, and exceptionally toxic political hyperpartisanship.

The widespread expectation is that citizens will vote for their party’s candidates, but there is now a body of evidence suggesting that our brains may be pre-wired to be liberal or conservative.

Enter neuro-politics. This discipline is younger than neuro-economics, neuro-law, neuro-ethics, neuro-marketing, neuro-art, neuro-culture, or neuro-esthetics. Neuro-politics focuses on the intersection of politics with neuroscience.¹ However, there are many antecedents to neuro-politics reflected in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Niccolò Machiavelli, John Locke, Baruch Spinoza, Henri Bergson, William James, and others.

Neuro-politics attempts to generate data to answer a variety of questions about political behavior, such as:

• Is political orientation associated with differences in certain brain regions?
• Are there reliable neural biomarkers of political orientation?
• Is political orientation modifiable, and if so, why are some individuals ferociously entrenched to one political dogma while others are able to untether themselves and adopt another political doctrine?
• What are the brain characteristics of “swing voters” who may align themselves with different parties in different election cycles?
• Is there a “religification” of politics among the ardent fanatics who regard the tenets of their political beliefs as “articles of faith?”
• Is the brain modified by certain attributes (such as educational level, age, sex, marital status, race, ethnicity, and religious affiliation) that translate to political decision-making?
• Can neuro-politics explain the sprouting of psychiatric symptoms such as obsessions, anxiety, irritability, anger, hatred, and conspiracy theories?
• Is political extremism driven by cortical structures, limbic structures, or both?

Politics and the brain

Here is a brief review of some studies that examined the relationship of political orientation or voting behavior with brain structure and function:

1. Roger Sperry, the 1981 Nobel Laureate (for his studies on split-brain patients) reported that in patients who underwent callosotomy, both cerebral hemispheres gave the same ratings of politicians when their photos were shown to each hemisphere separately.²

2. A functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study found that the faces of candidates activated participants’ ventromedial and anterior prefrontal cortices. Amygdala activation was associated with the intensity of the emotion.³

Continue to: A skin conductance...

3. A skin conductance study reported that politically liberal individuals had low reactivity to sudden noises and threatening stimuli, while conservative counterparts demonstrated high physiological reactions to noises and stimuli.⁴

4. Images of a losing candidate elicited greater activation on fMRI in the insula and ventral anterior cingulate compared to no activation by exposure to an image of the winning candidate.⁵

5. Another fMRI study found that “individualism” was associated with activation of the medial prefrontal cortex and temporo-parietal junction when participants listened to a set of political statements. On the other hand, “conservatism” activated the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, while “radicalism” activated the ventral striatum and posterior cingulate.⁶

6. An EEG activity study of healthy individuals revealed desynchronization in the alpha band related to the politicians who lost simulated elections and were judged as “less trustworthy” when the participant watched their faces.⁷

7. A structural MRI study of young adults reported that liberalism was associated with increased gray matter volume in the anterior cingulate, while conservatism was associated with increased volume of the right amygdala. The authors replicated their findings and concluded there is a possible link between brain structure and psychological mechanisms that mediate political attitudes.⁸

Continue to: To examine the effect of...

8. To examine the effect of a “first impression” based on the physical appearance of candidates, researchers compared individuals with damage to the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) with a group that had frontal damage that spared the lateral OFC and another group of matched healthy volunteers. They used a simulated elections paradigm in which participants voted based solely on photographs of the candidates’ faces. Only the group with OFC damage was influenced by attractiveness, while those with an intact frontal lobe or non-OFC frontal damage relied on other data, such as competence.⁹ These researchers concluded that an intact OFC is necessary for political decision-making.

9. A study using cognitive tasks reported that liberals are more adept at dealing with novel information than conservatives.¹⁰

What part of your brain will you use?

Regardless of the data generated by the neuro-politics studies, the bottom line is: What part of your brain do you use when you cast your vote for an issue, a representative, a senator, or a president? Is it a purely intellectual decision (ie, cortical), or is it driven by visceral emotions (ie, limbic)? Do you believe that every single item in your party’s platform is right and virtuous, while every item in the other party’s platform is wrong and evil? Can you think of any redeeming feature of the candidate you hate or the party you despise?

One attribute that we psychiatrists possess by virtue of our training and clinical work is that we are able to transcend dichotomies and to perceive nuances and shades of gray about controversial issues. So I hope we employ the circuits of our brain where wisdom putatively resides¹¹ and which may develop further (via neuroplasticity) with the conduct of psychotherapy.¹² Those brain circuits include:

• prefrontal cortex (for emotional regulation, decision-making, and value relativism)
• lateral prefrontal cortex (to facilitate calculated, reason-based decision-making)
• medial prefrontal cortex (for emotional valence and pro-social attitudes and behaviors).

However, being human, it is quite likely that our amygdala may “seep through” and color our judgment and decisions. But let us try to cast a vote that is not only good for the country but also good for our patients, many of whom may not even be able to vote. Election season is a time to make a positive difference in our patients’ lives, not just ours. Let’s hope our brains exploit this unique opportunity.