User login
No-cancel culture: How telehealth is making it easier to keep that therapy session
When the COVID-19 pandemic forced behavioral health providers to stop seeing patients in person and instead hold therapy sessions remotely, the switch produced an unintended, positive consequence: Fewer patients skipped appointments.
That had long been a problem in mental health care. Some outpatient programs previously had no-show rates as high as 60%, according to several studies.
Only 9% of psychiatrists reported that all patients kept their appointments before the pandemic, according to an American Psychiatric Association report. Once providers switched to telepsychiatry, that number increased to 32%.
Not only that, but providers and patients say teletherapy has largely been an effective lifeline for people struggling with anxiety, depression, and other psychological issues during an extraordinarily difficult time, even though it created a new set of challenges.
Many providers say they plan to continue offering teletherapy after the pandemic. Some states are making permanent the temporary pandemic rules that allow providers to be reimbursed at the same rates as for in-person visits, which is welcome news to practitioners who take patients’ insurance.
“We are in a mental health crisis right now, so more people are struggling and may be more open to accessing services,” said psychologist Allison Dempsey, PhD, associate professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “It’s much easier to connect from your living room.”
The problem for patients who didn’t show up was often as simple as a canceled ride, said Jody Long, a clinical social worker who studied the 60% rate of no-shows or late cancellations at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center psychiatric clinic in Memphis.
But sometimes it was the health problem itself. Mr. Long remembers seeing a first-time patient drive around the parking lot and then exit. The patient later called and told Mr. Long, “I just could not get out of the car; please forgive me and reschedule me.”
Mr. Long, now an assistant professor at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University, said that incident changed his perspective. “I realized when you’re having panic attacks or anxiety attacks or suffering from major depressive disorder, it’s hard,” he said. “It’s like you have built up these walls for protection and then all of a sudden you’re having to let these walls down.”
Absences strain providers whose bosses set billing and productivity expectations and those in private practice who lose billable hours, said Dr. Dempsey, who directs a program to provide mental health care for families of babies with serious medical complications. Psychotherapists often overbooked patients with the expectation that some would not show up.
Now Dr. Dempsey and colleagues no longer need to overbook. When patients don’t show up, staffers can sometimes contact a patient right away and hold the session. Other times, they can reschedule them for later that day or a different day.
And telepsychiatry performs as well as, if not better than, face-to-face delivery of mental health services, according to a World Journal of Psychiatry review of 452 studies.
Virtual visits can also save patients money, because they might not need to travel, take time off work, or pay for child care, said Jay Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee and a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado.
Dr. Shore started examining the potential of video conferencing to reach rural patients in the late ’90s and concluded that patients and providers can virtually build rapport, which he said is fundamental for effective therapy and medicine management.
But before the pandemic, almost 64% of psychiatrists had never used telehealth, according to the psychiatric association. Amid widespread skepticism, providers then had to do “10 years of implementations in 10 days,” said Dr. Shore, who has consulted with Dr. Dempsey and other providers.
Dr. Dempsey and colleagues faced a steep learning curve. She said she recently held a video therapy session with a mother who “seemed very out of it” before disappearing from the screen while her baby was crying.
She wondered if the patient’s exit was related to the stress of new motherhood or “something more concerning,” like addiction. She thinks she might have better understood the woman’s condition had they been in the same room. The patient called Dr. Dempsey’s team that night and told them she had relapsed into drug use and been taken to the emergency room. The mental health providers directed her to a treatment program, Dr. Dempsey said.
“We spent a lot of time reviewing what happened with that case and thinking about what we need to do differently,” Dr. Dempsey said.
Providers now routinely ask for the name of someone to call if they lose a connection and can no longer reach the patient.
In another session, Dr. Dempsey noticed that a patient seemed guarded and saw her partner hovering in the background. She said she worried about the possibility of domestic violence or “some other form of controlling behavior.”
In such cases, Dr. Dempsey called after the appointments or sent the patients secure messages to their online health portal. She asked if they felt safe and suggested they talk in person.
Such inability to maintain privacy remains a concern.
In a Walmart parking lot recently, psychologist Kristy Keefe, PsyD, of Western Illinois University, Macomb, heard a patient talking with her therapist from her car. Dr. Keefe said she wondered if the patient “had no other safe place to go to.”
To avoid that scenario, Dr. Keefe does 30-minute consultations with patients before their first telehealth appointment. She asks if they have space to talk where no one can overhear them and makes sure they have sufficient internet access and know how to use video conferencing.
To ensure that she, too, was prepared, Dr. Keefe upgraded her WiFi router, purchased two white-noise machines to drown out her conversations, and placed a stop sign on her door during appointments so her 5-year-old son knew she was seeing patients.
Dr. Keefe concluded that audio alone sometimes works better than video, which often lags. Over the phone, she and her psychology students “got really sensitive to tone fluctuations” in a patient’s voice and were better able to “pick up the emotion” than with video conferencing.
With those telehealth visits, her 20% no-show rate evaporated.
Kate Barnes, a 29-year-old middle school teacher in Fayetteville, Ark., who struggles with anxiety and depression, also has found visits easier by phone than by Zoom, because she doesn’t feel like a spotlight is on her.
“I can focus more on what I want to say,” she said.
In one of Dr. Keefe’s video sessions, though, a patient reached out, touched the camera and started to cry as she said how appreciative she was that someone was there, Dr. Keefe recalled.
“I am so very thankful that they had something in this terrible time of loss and trauma and isolation,” said Dr. Keefe.
Demand for mental health services will likely continue even after the lifting of all COVID restrictions. according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Health Interview Survey.
“That is not going to go away with snapping our fingers,” Dr. Dempsey said.
After the pandemic, Dr. Shore said, providers should review data from the past year and determine when virtual care or in-person care is more effective. He also said the health care industry needs to work to bridge the digital divide that exists because of lack of access to devices and broadband internet.
Even though Ms. Barnes said she did not see teletherapy as less effective than in-person therapy, she would like to return to seeing her therapist in person.
“When you are in person with someone, you can pick up on their body language better,” she said. “It’s a lot harder over a video call to do that.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
When the COVID-19 pandemic forced behavioral health providers to stop seeing patients in person and instead hold therapy sessions remotely, the switch produced an unintended, positive consequence: Fewer patients skipped appointments.
That had long been a problem in mental health care. Some outpatient programs previously had no-show rates as high as 60%, according to several studies.
Only 9% of psychiatrists reported that all patients kept their appointments before the pandemic, according to an American Psychiatric Association report. Once providers switched to telepsychiatry, that number increased to 32%.
Not only that, but providers and patients say teletherapy has largely been an effective lifeline for people struggling with anxiety, depression, and other psychological issues during an extraordinarily difficult time, even though it created a new set of challenges.
Many providers say they plan to continue offering teletherapy after the pandemic. Some states are making permanent the temporary pandemic rules that allow providers to be reimbursed at the same rates as for in-person visits, which is welcome news to practitioners who take patients’ insurance.
“We are in a mental health crisis right now, so more people are struggling and may be more open to accessing services,” said psychologist Allison Dempsey, PhD, associate professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “It’s much easier to connect from your living room.”
The problem for patients who didn’t show up was often as simple as a canceled ride, said Jody Long, a clinical social worker who studied the 60% rate of no-shows or late cancellations at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center psychiatric clinic in Memphis.
But sometimes it was the health problem itself. Mr. Long remembers seeing a first-time patient drive around the parking lot and then exit. The patient later called and told Mr. Long, “I just could not get out of the car; please forgive me and reschedule me.”
Mr. Long, now an assistant professor at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University, said that incident changed his perspective. “I realized when you’re having panic attacks or anxiety attacks or suffering from major depressive disorder, it’s hard,” he said. “It’s like you have built up these walls for protection and then all of a sudden you’re having to let these walls down.”
Absences strain providers whose bosses set billing and productivity expectations and those in private practice who lose billable hours, said Dr. Dempsey, who directs a program to provide mental health care for families of babies with serious medical complications. Psychotherapists often overbooked patients with the expectation that some would not show up.
Now Dr. Dempsey and colleagues no longer need to overbook. When patients don’t show up, staffers can sometimes contact a patient right away and hold the session. Other times, they can reschedule them for later that day or a different day.
And telepsychiatry performs as well as, if not better than, face-to-face delivery of mental health services, according to a World Journal of Psychiatry review of 452 studies.
Virtual visits can also save patients money, because they might not need to travel, take time off work, or pay for child care, said Jay Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee and a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado.
Dr. Shore started examining the potential of video conferencing to reach rural patients in the late ’90s and concluded that patients and providers can virtually build rapport, which he said is fundamental for effective therapy and medicine management.
But before the pandemic, almost 64% of psychiatrists had never used telehealth, according to the psychiatric association. Amid widespread skepticism, providers then had to do “10 years of implementations in 10 days,” said Dr. Shore, who has consulted with Dr. Dempsey and other providers.
Dr. Dempsey and colleagues faced a steep learning curve. She said she recently held a video therapy session with a mother who “seemed very out of it” before disappearing from the screen while her baby was crying.
She wondered if the patient’s exit was related to the stress of new motherhood or “something more concerning,” like addiction. She thinks she might have better understood the woman’s condition had they been in the same room. The patient called Dr. Dempsey’s team that night and told them she had relapsed into drug use and been taken to the emergency room. The mental health providers directed her to a treatment program, Dr. Dempsey said.
“We spent a lot of time reviewing what happened with that case and thinking about what we need to do differently,” Dr. Dempsey said.
Providers now routinely ask for the name of someone to call if they lose a connection and can no longer reach the patient.
In another session, Dr. Dempsey noticed that a patient seemed guarded and saw her partner hovering in the background. She said she worried about the possibility of domestic violence or “some other form of controlling behavior.”
In such cases, Dr. Dempsey called after the appointments or sent the patients secure messages to their online health portal. She asked if they felt safe and suggested they talk in person.
Such inability to maintain privacy remains a concern.
In a Walmart parking lot recently, psychologist Kristy Keefe, PsyD, of Western Illinois University, Macomb, heard a patient talking with her therapist from her car. Dr. Keefe said she wondered if the patient “had no other safe place to go to.”
To avoid that scenario, Dr. Keefe does 30-minute consultations with patients before their first telehealth appointment. She asks if they have space to talk where no one can overhear them and makes sure they have sufficient internet access and know how to use video conferencing.
To ensure that she, too, was prepared, Dr. Keefe upgraded her WiFi router, purchased two white-noise machines to drown out her conversations, and placed a stop sign on her door during appointments so her 5-year-old son knew she was seeing patients.
Dr. Keefe concluded that audio alone sometimes works better than video, which often lags. Over the phone, she and her psychology students “got really sensitive to tone fluctuations” in a patient’s voice and were better able to “pick up the emotion” than with video conferencing.
With those telehealth visits, her 20% no-show rate evaporated.
Kate Barnes, a 29-year-old middle school teacher in Fayetteville, Ark., who struggles with anxiety and depression, also has found visits easier by phone than by Zoom, because she doesn’t feel like a spotlight is on her.
“I can focus more on what I want to say,” she said.
In one of Dr. Keefe’s video sessions, though, a patient reached out, touched the camera and started to cry as she said how appreciative she was that someone was there, Dr. Keefe recalled.
“I am so very thankful that they had something in this terrible time of loss and trauma and isolation,” said Dr. Keefe.
Demand for mental health services will likely continue even after the lifting of all COVID restrictions. according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Health Interview Survey.
“That is not going to go away with snapping our fingers,” Dr. Dempsey said.
After the pandemic, Dr. Shore said, providers should review data from the past year and determine when virtual care or in-person care is more effective. He also said the health care industry needs to work to bridge the digital divide that exists because of lack of access to devices and broadband internet.
Even though Ms. Barnes said she did not see teletherapy as less effective than in-person therapy, she would like to return to seeing her therapist in person.
“When you are in person with someone, you can pick up on their body language better,” she said. “It’s a lot harder over a video call to do that.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
When the COVID-19 pandemic forced behavioral health providers to stop seeing patients in person and instead hold therapy sessions remotely, the switch produced an unintended, positive consequence: Fewer patients skipped appointments.
That had long been a problem in mental health care. Some outpatient programs previously had no-show rates as high as 60%, according to several studies.
Only 9% of psychiatrists reported that all patients kept their appointments before the pandemic, according to an American Psychiatric Association report. Once providers switched to telepsychiatry, that number increased to 32%.
Not only that, but providers and patients say teletherapy has largely been an effective lifeline for people struggling with anxiety, depression, and other psychological issues during an extraordinarily difficult time, even though it created a new set of challenges.
Many providers say they plan to continue offering teletherapy after the pandemic. Some states are making permanent the temporary pandemic rules that allow providers to be reimbursed at the same rates as for in-person visits, which is welcome news to practitioners who take patients’ insurance.
“We are in a mental health crisis right now, so more people are struggling and may be more open to accessing services,” said psychologist Allison Dempsey, PhD, associate professor at University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora. “It’s much easier to connect from your living room.”
The problem for patients who didn’t show up was often as simple as a canceled ride, said Jody Long, a clinical social worker who studied the 60% rate of no-shows or late cancellations at the University of Tennessee Health Science Center psychiatric clinic in Memphis.
But sometimes it was the health problem itself. Mr. Long remembers seeing a first-time patient drive around the parking lot and then exit. The patient later called and told Mr. Long, “I just could not get out of the car; please forgive me and reschedule me.”
Mr. Long, now an assistant professor at Jacksonville (Ala.) State University, said that incident changed his perspective. “I realized when you’re having panic attacks or anxiety attacks or suffering from major depressive disorder, it’s hard,” he said. “It’s like you have built up these walls for protection and then all of a sudden you’re having to let these walls down.”
Absences strain providers whose bosses set billing and productivity expectations and those in private practice who lose billable hours, said Dr. Dempsey, who directs a program to provide mental health care for families of babies with serious medical complications. Psychotherapists often overbooked patients with the expectation that some would not show up.
Now Dr. Dempsey and colleagues no longer need to overbook. When patients don’t show up, staffers can sometimes contact a patient right away and hold the session. Other times, they can reschedule them for later that day or a different day.
And telepsychiatry performs as well as, if not better than, face-to-face delivery of mental health services, according to a World Journal of Psychiatry review of 452 studies.
Virtual visits can also save patients money, because they might not need to travel, take time off work, or pay for child care, said Jay Shore, MD, MPH, chairperson of the American Psychiatric Association’s telepsychiatry committee and a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado.
Dr. Shore started examining the potential of video conferencing to reach rural patients in the late ’90s and concluded that patients and providers can virtually build rapport, which he said is fundamental for effective therapy and medicine management.
But before the pandemic, almost 64% of psychiatrists had never used telehealth, according to the psychiatric association. Amid widespread skepticism, providers then had to do “10 years of implementations in 10 days,” said Dr. Shore, who has consulted with Dr. Dempsey and other providers.
Dr. Dempsey and colleagues faced a steep learning curve. She said she recently held a video therapy session with a mother who “seemed very out of it” before disappearing from the screen while her baby was crying.
She wondered if the patient’s exit was related to the stress of new motherhood or “something more concerning,” like addiction. She thinks she might have better understood the woman’s condition had they been in the same room. The patient called Dr. Dempsey’s team that night and told them she had relapsed into drug use and been taken to the emergency room. The mental health providers directed her to a treatment program, Dr. Dempsey said.
“We spent a lot of time reviewing what happened with that case and thinking about what we need to do differently,” Dr. Dempsey said.
Providers now routinely ask for the name of someone to call if they lose a connection and can no longer reach the patient.
In another session, Dr. Dempsey noticed that a patient seemed guarded and saw her partner hovering in the background. She said she worried about the possibility of domestic violence or “some other form of controlling behavior.”
In such cases, Dr. Dempsey called after the appointments or sent the patients secure messages to their online health portal. She asked if they felt safe and suggested they talk in person.
Such inability to maintain privacy remains a concern.
In a Walmart parking lot recently, psychologist Kristy Keefe, PsyD, of Western Illinois University, Macomb, heard a patient talking with her therapist from her car. Dr. Keefe said she wondered if the patient “had no other safe place to go to.”
To avoid that scenario, Dr. Keefe does 30-minute consultations with patients before their first telehealth appointment. She asks if they have space to talk where no one can overhear them and makes sure they have sufficient internet access and know how to use video conferencing.
To ensure that she, too, was prepared, Dr. Keefe upgraded her WiFi router, purchased two white-noise machines to drown out her conversations, and placed a stop sign on her door during appointments so her 5-year-old son knew she was seeing patients.
Dr. Keefe concluded that audio alone sometimes works better than video, which often lags. Over the phone, she and her psychology students “got really sensitive to tone fluctuations” in a patient’s voice and were better able to “pick up the emotion” than with video conferencing.
With those telehealth visits, her 20% no-show rate evaporated.
Kate Barnes, a 29-year-old middle school teacher in Fayetteville, Ark., who struggles with anxiety and depression, also has found visits easier by phone than by Zoom, because she doesn’t feel like a spotlight is on her.
“I can focus more on what I want to say,” she said.
In one of Dr. Keefe’s video sessions, though, a patient reached out, touched the camera and started to cry as she said how appreciative she was that someone was there, Dr. Keefe recalled.
“I am so very thankful that they had something in this terrible time of loss and trauma and isolation,” said Dr. Keefe.
Demand for mental health services will likely continue even after the lifting of all COVID restrictions. according to data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Health Interview Survey.
“That is not going to go away with snapping our fingers,” Dr. Dempsey said.
After the pandemic, Dr. Shore said, providers should review data from the past year and determine when virtual care or in-person care is more effective. He also said the health care industry needs to work to bridge the digital divide that exists because of lack of access to devices and broadband internet.
Even though Ms. Barnes said she did not see teletherapy as less effective than in-person therapy, she would like to return to seeing her therapist in person.
“When you are in person with someone, you can pick up on their body language better,” she said. “It’s a lot harder over a video call to do that.”
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
The end of happy hour? No safe level of alcohol for the brain
There is no safe amount of alcohol consumption for the brain; even moderate drinking adversely affects brain structure and function, according a British study of more 25,000 adults.
“This is one of the largest studies of alcohol and brain health to date,” Anya Topiwala, DPhil, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.
“There have been previous claims the relationship between alcohol and brain health are J-shaped (ie., small amounts are protective), but we formally tested this and did not find it to be the case. In fact, we found that any level of alcohol was associated with poorer brain health, compared to no alcohol,” Dr. Topiwala added.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was published online May 12 in MedRxiv.
Global impact on the brain
Participants provided detailed information on their alcohol intake. The cohort included 691 never-drinkers, 617 former drinkers, and 24,069 current drinkers.
Median alcohol intake was 13.5 units (102 g) weekly. Almost half of the sample (48.2%) were drinking above current UK low-risk guidelines (14 units, 112 g weekly), but few were heavy drinkers (>50 units, 400 g weekly).
After adjusting for all known potential confounders and multiple comparisons, a higher volume of alcohol consumed per week was associated with lower gray matter in “almost all areas of the brain,” Dr. Topiwala said in an interview.
Alcohol consumption accounted for up to 0.8% of gray matter volume variance. “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor. These brain changes have been previously linked to aging, poorer performance on memory changes, and dementia,” Dr. Topiwala said.
Widespread negative associations were also found between drinking alcohol and all the measures of white matter integrity that were assessed. There was a significant positive association between alcohol consumption and resting-state functional connectivity.
Higher blood pressure and body mass index “steepened” the negative associations between alcohol and brain health, and binge drinking had additive negative effects on brain structure beyond the absolute volume consumed.
There was no evidence that the risk for alcohol-related brain harm differs according to the type of alcohol consumed (wine, beer, or spirits).
A key limitation of the study is that the study population from the UK Biobank represents a sample that is healthier, better educated, and less deprived and is characterized by less ethnic diversity than the general population. “As with any observational study, we cannot infer causality from association,” the authors note.
What remains unclear, they say, is the duration of drinking needed to cause an effect on the brain. It may be that vulnerability is increased during periods of life in which dynamic brain changes occur, such as adolescence and older age.
They also note that some studies of alcohol-dependent individuals have suggested that at least some brain damage is reversible upon abstinence. Whether that is true for moderate drinkers is unknown.
On the basis of their findings, there is “no safe dose of alcohol for the brain,” Dr. Topiwala and colleagues conclude. They suggest that current low-risk drinking guidelines be revisited to take account of brain effects.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Center.
Paul Matthews, MD, head of the department of brain sciences, Imperial College London, noted that this “carefully performed preliminary report extends our earlier UK Dementia Research Institute study of a smaller group from same UK Biobank population also showing that even moderate drinking is associated with greater atrophy of the brain, as well as injury to the heart and liver.”
Dr. Matthews said the investigators’ conclusion that there is no safe threshold below which alcohol consumption has no toxic effects “echoes our own. We join with them in suggesting that current public health guidelines concerning alcohol consumption may need to be revisited.”
Rebecca Dewey, PhD, research fellow in neuroimaging, University of Nottingham (England), cautioned that “the degree to which very small changes in brain volume are harmful” is unknown.
“While there was no threshold under which alcohol consumption did not cause changes in the brain, there may a degree of brain volume difference that is irrelevant to brain health. We don’t know what these people’s brains looked like before they drank alcohol, so the brain may have learned to cope/compensate,” Dewey said.
Sadie Boniface, PhD, head of research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies and visiting researcher at King’s College London, said, “While we can’t yet say for sure whether there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol regarding brain health at the moment, it has been known for decades that heavy drinking is bad for brain health.
“We also shouldn’t forget alcohol affects all parts of the body and there are multiple health risks. For example, it is already known there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol consumption for the seven types of cancer caused by alcohol, as identified by the UK chief medical officers,” Dr. Boniface said.
The study was supported in part by the Wellcome Trust, Li Ka Shing Center for Health Information and Discovery, the National Institutes of Health, and the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Topiwala, Dr. Boniface, Dr. Dewey, and Dr. Matthews have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is no safe amount of alcohol consumption for the brain; even moderate drinking adversely affects brain structure and function, according a British study of more 25,000 adults.
“This is one of the largest studies of alcohol and brain health to date,” Anya Topiwala, DPhil, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.
“There have been previous claims the relationship between alcohol and brain health are J-shaped (ie., small amounts are protective), but we formally tested this and did not find it to be the case. In fact, we found that any level of alcohol was associated with poorer brain health, compared to no alcohol,” Dr. Topiwala added.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was published online May 12 in MedRxiv.
Global impact on the brain
Participants provided detailed information on their alcohol intake. The cohort included 691 never-drinkers, 617 former drinkers, and 24,069 current drinkers.
Median alcohol intake was 13.5 units (102 g) weekly. Almost half of the sample (48.2%) were drinking above current UK low-risk guidelines (14 units, 112 g weekly), but few were heavy drinkers (>50 units, 400 g weekly).
After adjusting for all known potential confounders and multiple comparisons, a higher volume of alcohol consumed per week was associated with lower gray matter in “almost all areas of the brain,” Dr. Topiwala said in an interview.
Alcohol consumption accounted for up to 0.8% of gray matter volume variance. “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor. These brain changes have been previously linked to aging, poorer performance on memory changes, and dementia,” Dr. Topiwala said.
Widespread negative associations were also found between drinking alcohol and all the measures of white matter integrity that were assessed. There was a significant positive association between alcohol consumption and resting-state functional connectivity.
Higher blood pressure and body mass index “steepened” the negative associations between alcohol and brain health, and binge drinking had additive negative effects on brain structure beyond the absolute volume consumed.
There was no evidence that the risk for alcohol-related brain harm differs according to the type of alcohol consumed (wine, beer, or spirits).
A key limitation of the study is that the study population from the UK Biobank represents a sample that is healthier, better educated, and less deprived and is characterized by less ethnic diversity than the general population. “As with any observational study, we cannot infer causality from association,” the authors note.
What remains unclear, they say, is the duration of drinking needed to cause an effect on the brain. It may be that vulnerability is increased during periods of life in which dynamic brain changes occur, such as adolescence and older age.
They also note that some studies of alcohol-dependent individuals have suggested that at least some brain damage is reversible upon abstinence. Whether that is true for moderate drinkers is unknown.
On the basis of their findings, there is “no safe dose of alcohol for the brain,” Dr. Topiwala and colleagues conclude. They suggest that current low-risk drinking guidelines be revisited to take account of brain effects.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Center.
Paul Matthews, MD, head of the department of brain sciences, Imperial College London, noted that this “carefully performed preliminary report extends our earlier UK Dementia Research Institute study of a smaller group from same UK Biobank population also showing that even moderate drinking is associated with greater atrophy of the brain, as well as injury to the heart and liver.”
Dr. Matthews said the investigators’ conclusion that there is no safe threshold below which alcohol consumption has no toxic effects “echoes our own. We join with them in suggesting that current public health guidelines concerning alcohol consumption may need to be revisited.”
Rebecca Dewey, PhD, research fellow in neuroimaging, University of Nottingham (England), cautioned that “the degree to which very small changes in brain volume are harmful” is unknown.
“While there was no threshold under which alcohol consumption did not cause changes in the brain, there may a degree of brain volume difference that is irrelevant to brain health. We don’t know what these people’s brains looked like before they drank alcohol, so the brain may have learned to cope/compensate,” Dewey said.
Sadie Boniface, PhD, head of research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies and visiting researcher at King’s College London, said, “While we can’t yet say for sure whether there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol regarding brain health at the moment, it has been known for decades that heavy drinking is bad for brain health.
“We also shouldn’t forget alcohol affects all parts of the body and there are multiple health risks. For example, it is already known there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol consumption for the seven types of cancer caused by alcohol, as identified by the UK chief medical officers,” Dr. Boniface said.
The study was supported in part by the Wellcome Trust, Li Ka Shing Center for Health Information and Discovery, the National Institutes of Health, and the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Topiwala, Dr. Boniface, Dr. Dewey, and Dr. Matthews have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
There is no safe amount of alcohol consumption for the brain; even moderate drinking adversely affects brain structure and function, according a British study of more 25,000 adults.
“This is one of the largest studies of alcohol and brain health to date,” Anya Topiwala, DPhil, University of Oxford (England), told this news organization.
“There have been previous claims the relationship between alcohol and brain health are J-shaped (ie., small amounts are protective), but we formally tested this and did not find it to be the case. In fact, we found that any level of alcohol was associated with poorer brain health, compared to no alcohol,” Dr. Topiwala added.
The study, which has not yet been peer reviewed, was published online May 12 in MedRxiv.
Global impact on the brain
Participants provided detailed information on their alcohol intake. The cohort included 691 never-drinkers, 617 former drinkers, and 24,069 current drinkers.
Median alcohol intake was 13.5 units (102 g) weekly. Almost half of the sample (48.2%) were drinking above current UK low-risk guidelines (14 units, 112 g weekly), but few were heavy drinkers (>50 units, 400 g weekly).
After adjusting for all known potential confounders and multiple comparisons, a higher volume of alcohol consumed per week was associated with lower gray matter in “almost all areas of the brain,” Dr. Topiwala said in an interview.
Alcohol consumption accounted for up to 0.8% of gray matter volume variance. “The size of the effect is small, albeit greater than any other modifiable risk factor. These brain changes have been previously linked to aging, poorer performance on memory changes, and dementia,” Dr. Topiwala said.
Widespread negative associations were also found between drinking alcohol and all the measures of white matter integrity that were assessed. There was a significant positive association between alcohol consumption and resting-state functional connectivity.
Higher blood pressure and body mass index “steepened” the negative associations between alcohol and brain health, and binge drinking had additive negative effects on brain structure beyond the absolute volume consumed.
There was no evidence that the risk for alcohol-related brain harm differs according to the type of alcohol consumed (wine, beer, or spirits).
A key limitation of the study is that the study population from the UK Biobank represents a sample that is healthier, better educated, and less deprived and is characterized by less ethnic diversity than the general population. “As with any observational study, we cannot infer causality from association,” the authors note.
What remains unclear, they say, is the duration of drinking needed to cause an effect on the brain. It may be that vulnerability is increased during periods of life in which dynamic brain changes occur, such as adolescence and older age.
They also note that some studies of alcohol-dependent individuals have suggested that at least some brain damage is reversible upon abstinence. Whether that is true for moderate drinkers is unknown.
On the basis of their findings, there is “no safe dose of alcohol for the brain,” Dr. Topiwala and colleagues conclude. They suggest that current low-risk drinking guidelines be revisited to take account of brain effects.
Experts weigh in
Several experts weighed in on the study in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Center.
Paul Matthews, MD, head of the department of brain sciences, Imperial College London, noted that this “carefully performed preliminary report extends our earlier UK Dementia Research Institute study of a smaller group from same UK Biobank population also showing that even moderate drinking is associated with greater atrophy of the brain, as well as injury to the heart and liver.”
Dr. Matthews said the investigators’ conclusion that there is no safe threshold below which alcohol consumption has no toxic effects “echoes our own. We join with them in suggesting that current public health guidelines concerning alcohol consumption may need to be revisited.”
Rebecca Dewey, PhD, research fellow in neuroimaging, University of Nottingham (England), cautioned that “the degree to which very small changes in brain volume are harmful” is unknown.
“While there was no threshold under which alcohol consumption did not cause changes in the brain, there may a degree of brain volume difference that is irrelevant to brain health. We don’t know what these people’s brains looked like before they drank alcohol, so the brain may have learned to cope/compensate,” Dewey said.
Sadie Boniface, PhD, head of research at the Institute of Alcohol Studies and visiting researcher at King’s College London, said, “While we can’t yet say for sure whether there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol regarding brain health at the moment, it has been known for decades that heavy drinking is bad for brain health.
“We also shouldn’t forget alcohol affects all parts of the body and there are multiple health risks. For example, it is already known there is ‘no safe level’ of alcohol consumption for the seven types of cancer caused by alcohol, as identified by the UK chief medical officers,” Dr. Boniface said.
The study was supported in part by the Wellcome Trust, Li Ka Shing Center for Health Information and Discovery, the National Institutes of Health, and the UK Medical Research Council. Dr. Topiwala, Dr. Boniface, Dr. Dewey, and Dr. Matthews have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Unhealthy drinking may worsen after weight loss surgery
Internal medicine primarily affords us the skill to cope with disorders of chronicity that rarely disappear. For every pneumococcal pneumonia we eradicate, we have multiple patients with HIV who will be treated indefinitely. Diabetes, once a lethal disease, is now a chronic condition for most patients, and even with treatment the trajectory is usually one of progression.
One gratifying exception in my professional lifetime has been the introduction of gastric surgeries that reduce morbidity and seem to extend the life span of those who successfully undergo these procedures. The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy have kept thousands of patients in better health for many years, giving them a second chance. For a subset, however, this second chance comes with a stumbling block of substance use – most notably alcohol – that exceeds their preoperative use.
Increased alcohol use after surgery
A group affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently reviewed the large central database to identify changes in alcohol consumption among patients who had undergone successful bariatric surgery. The VA regularly administers the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C), a survey validated as a reliable estimate of individual alcohol consumption. It is inserted into the VA electronic health record where it can be readily retrieved. By matching these survey results with individuals who underwent bariatric surgery at the VA and survived at least 8 years post op, the authors were able to follow trends in alcohol consumption, beginning 2 years before surgery through 8 years after.
Using the same database, the authors identified a larger number of nonoperative control patients with slightly less obesity but otherwise matched for several elements of comorbidity, such as hypertension, certain psychiatric disorders, and personal habits, including alcohol consumption.
Alcohol use was categorized as none, minor social use, and “unhealthy” use. Among those with no or minor social use preoperatively, 4% converted to unhealthy use at 3 years and about 5% at 8 years, significantly more than in the nonoperative control group. Those who had gastric bypass had somewhat more conversion than did those who had sleeve gastrectomy, though not significantly so.
Patients with an alcohol concern preoperatively took an interesting course. Consumption declined from 2 years pre op to the year of surgery, suggesting that curtailing its use may have been a surgical precondition. Postoperatively, they returned to unhealthy drinking levels. Those who underwent the sleeve gastrectomy consumed about the same amount of alcohol as did their matched nonoperative controls, but those who underwent bypass increased their baseline unhealthy use beyond that of the controls.
Because total abstinence is often the recommendation for treating alcoholism, the research group assessed how adherent the excessive drinkers were to abstinence. In anticipation of surgery, the rates of abstinence increased until the year of surgery, but by 3 years post op, consumption was often up to unhealthy levels, though no more than that of control participants with preexisting drinking problems.
Smoking and illicit drug use
Although increased alcohol consumption has generated the most studies, some attention has been given to smoking and illicit drug use, which may also increase over time.
One small study looked at composite tobacco, alcohol, and drug use pre- and postoperatively over 2 years, using population data. The authors found a parallel pattern of users voluntarily reducing their substance use in anticipation of surgery but relapsing as the procedure made them more functional and perhaps more independent. Of the substances people resumed, alcohol by far involved the largest increase in use from the preoperative baseline.
These studies, as important as they are, reveal what happened more effectively than they disclose why it happened. The latter requires some clinical experience. Curtailing cigarettes and alcohol use preoperatively may have been done to stay in the good graces of the surgeon. Many patients may have seen this as their path to a second chance that they intended to maintain.
The incentive to proceed to surgical weight loss, which incurs a measure of risk and forces changes in long ingrained eating habits, involves avoiding future morbidity and promoting longevity. Thus, the postoperative behaviors that threaten the long-term goal need to become a component of ongoing follow-up.
The acquisition of adverse behaviors not present preoperatively seems more difficult to sort out, and obligates those of us following these patients to ask about changes in alcohol use and provide resources for them should they need intervention.
Dr. Plotzker is a retired endocrinologist with 40 years of experience treating patients in both private practice and hospital settings.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Internal medicine primarily affords us the skill to cope with disorders of chronicity that rarely disappear. For every pneumococcal pneumonia we eradicate, we have multiple patients with HIV who will be treated indefinitely. Diabetes, once a lethal disease, is now a chronic condition for most patients, and even with treatment the trajectory is usually one of progression.
One gratifying exception in my professional lifetime has been the introduction of gastric surgeries that reduce morbidity and seem to extend the life span of those who successfully undergo these procedures. The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy have kept thousands of patients in better health for many years, giving them a second chance. For a subset, however, this second chance comes with a stumbling block of substance use – most notably alcohol – that exceeds their preoperative use.
Increased alcohol use after surgery
A group affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently reviewed the large central database to identify changes in alcohol consumption among patients who had undergone successful bariatric surgery. The VA regularly administers the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C), a survey validated as a reliable estimate of individual alcohol consumption. It is inserted into the VA electronic health record where it can be readily retrieved. By matching these survey results with individuals who underwent bariatric surgery at the VA and survived at least 8 years post op, the authors were able to follow trends in alcohol consumption, beginning 2 years before surgery through 8 years after.
Using the same database, the authors identified a larger number of nonoperative control patients with slightly less obesity but otherwise matched for several elements of comorbidity, such as hypertension, certain psychiatric disorders, and personal habits, including alcohol consumption.
Alcohol use was categorized as none, minor social use, and “unhealthy” use. Among those with no or minor social use preoperatively, 4% converted to unhealthy use at 3 years and about 5% at 8 years, significantly more than in the nonoperative control group. Those who had gastric bypass had somewhat more conversion than did those who had sleeve gastrectomy, though not significantly so.
Patients with an alcohol concern preoperatively took an interesting course. Consumption declined from 2 years pre op to the year of surgery, suggesting that curtailing its use may have been a surgical precondition. Postoperatively, they returned to unhealthy drinking levels. Those who underwent the sleeve gastrectomy consumed about the same amount of alcohol as did their matched nonoperative controls, but those who underwent bypass increased their baseline unhealthy use beyond that of the controls.
Because total abstinence is often the recommendation for treating alcoholism, the research group assessed how adherent the excessive drinkers were to abstinence. In anticipation of surgery, the rates of abstinence increased until the year of surgery, but by 3 years post op, consumption was often up to unhealthy levels, though no more than that of control participants with preexisting drinking problems.
Smoking and illicit drug use
Although increased alcohol consumption has generated the most studies, some attention has been given to smoking and illicit drug use, which may also increase over time.
One small study looked at composite tobacco, alcohol, and drug use pre- and postoperatively over 2 years, using population data. The authors found a parallel pattern of users voluntarily reducing their substance use in anticipation of surgery but relapsing as the procedure made them more functional and perhaps more independent. Of the substances people resumed, alcohol by far involved the largest increase in use from the preoperative baseline.
These studies, as important as they are, reveal what happened more effectively than they disclose why it happened. The latter requires some clinical experience. Curtailing cigarettes and alcohol use preoperatively may have been done to stay in the good graces of the surgeon. Many patients may have seen this as their path to a second chance that they intended to maintain.
The incentive to proceed to surgical weight loss, which incurs a measure of risk and forces changes in long ingrained eating habits, involves avoiding future morbidity and promoting longevity. Thus, the postoperative behaviors that threaten the long-term goal need to become a component of ongoing follow-up.
The acquisition of adverse behaviors not present preoperatively seems more difficult to sort out, and obligates those of us following these patients to ask about changes in alcohol use and provide resources for them should they need intervention.
Dr. Plotzker is a retired endocrinologist with 40 years of experience treating patients in both private practice and hospital settings.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Internal medicine primarily affords us the skill to cope with disorders of chronicity that rarely disappear. For every pneumococcal pneumonia we eradicate, we have multiple patients with HIV who will be treated indefinitely. Diabetes, once a lethal disease, is now a chronic condition for most patients, and even with treatment the trajectory is usually one of progression.
One gratifying exception in my professional lifetime has been the introduction of gastric surgeries that reduce morbidity and seem to extend the life span of those who successfully undergo these procedures. The Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy have kept thousands of patients in better health for many years, giving them a second chance. For a subset, however, this second chance comes with a stumbling block of substance use – most notably alcohol – that exceeds their preoperative use.
Increased alcohol use after surgery
A group affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently reviewed the large central database to identify changes in alcohol consumption among patients who had undergone successful bariatric surgery. The VA regularly administers the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C), a survey validated as a reliable estimate of individual alcohol consumption. It is inserted into the VA electronic health record where it can be readily retrieved. By matching these survey results with individuals who underwent bariatric surgery at the VA and survived at least 8 years post op, the authors were able to follow trends in alcohol consumption, beginning 2 years before surgery through 8 years after.
Using the same database, the authors identified a larger number of nonoperative control patients with slightly less obesity but otherwise matched for several elements of comorbidity, such as hypertension, certain psychiatric disorders, and personal habits, including alcohol consumption.
Alcohol use was categorized as none, minor social use, and “unhealthy” use. Among those with no or minor social use preoperatively, 4% converted to unhealthy use at 3 years and about 5% at 8 years, significantly more than in the nonoperative control group. Those who had gastric bypass had somewhat more conversion than did those who had sleeve gastrectomy, though not significantly so.
Patients with an alcohol concern preoperatively took an interesting course. Consumption declined from 2 years pre op to the year of surgery, suggesting that curtailing its use may have been a surgical precondition. Postoperatively, they returned to unhealthy drinking levels. Those who underwent the sleeve gastrectomy consumed about the same amount of alcohol as did their matched nonoperative controls, but those who underwent bypass increased their baseline unhealthy use beyond that of the controls.
Because total abstinence is often the recommendation for treating alcoholism, the research group assessed how adherent the excessive drinkers were to abstinence. In anticipation of surgery, the rates of abstinence increased until the year of surgery, but by 3 years post op, consumption was often up to unhealthy levels, though no more than that of control participants with preexisting drinking problems.
Smoking and illicit drug use
Although increased alcohol consumption has generated the most studies, some attention has been given to smoking and illicit drug use, which may also increase over time.
One small study looked at composite tobacco, alcohol, and drug use pre- and postoperatively over 2 years, using population data. The authors found a parallel pattern of users voluntarily reducing their substance use in anticipation of surgery but relapsing as the procedure made them more functional and perhaps more independent. Of the substances people resumed, alcohol by far involved the largest increase in use from the preoperative baseline.
These studies, as important as they are, reveal what happened more effectively than they disclose why it happened. The latter requires some clinical experience. Curtailing cigarettes and alcohol use preoperatively may have been done to stay in the good graces of the surgeon. Many patients may have seen this as their path to a second chance that they intended to maintain.
The incentive to proceed to surgical weight loss, which incurs a measure of risk and forces changes in long ingrained eating habits, involves avoiding future morbidity and promoting longevity. Thus, the postoperative behaviors that threaten the long-term goal need to become a component of ongoing follow-up.
The acquisition of adverse behaviors not present preoperatively seems more difficult to sort out, and obligates those of us following these patients to ask about changes in alcohol use and provide resources for them should they need intervention.
Dr. Plotzker is a retired endocrinologist with 40 years of experience treating patients in both private practice and hospital settings.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Prevalence of psychiatric disorders higher in adult cerebral palsy patients
Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.
The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.
In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.
The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.
Overall, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.
When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).
Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.
However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”
The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.
The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.
Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.
The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.
In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.
The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.
Overall, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.
When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).
Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.
However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”
The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.
The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.
Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.
The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.
In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.
The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.
Overall, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.
When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).
Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.
However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”
The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.
The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.
FROM RESEARCH IN DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
HHS to inject billions into mental health, substance use disorders
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.
The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.
The award amounts will vary by state.
The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.
The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.
, which fueled an increase in anxiety, depression, and overdose, said Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, MD, on the call.
“We know multiple stressors during the pandemic – isolation, sickness, grief, job loss, food instability, and loss of routines – have devastated many Americans and presented the unprecedented behavioral health challenges across the nation,” said Dr. Levine.
The HHS also announced that it is re-establishing a Behavioral Health Coordinating Council (BHCC). Dr. Levine and Mr. Coderre will serve as cochairs of the Council, which will coordinate action-oriented approaches to addressing the HHS’s behavioral health efforts.
However, in 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office criticized the BHCC for only focusing on the HHS, and noted the lack of coordination across the federal government’s various efforts to address mental health.
‘A huge step forward’
The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.
“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.”
APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, added: “This Council has great potential to ease the challenges we face as we begin to recover from the pandemic’s impact on our society, and [the] APA looks forward to assisting in their efforts.”
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra noted in a statement that the COVID-19 pandemic “has made clear the need to invest resources in our nation’s mental health and address the inequities that still exist around behavioral health care.” He added, “This national problem calls for department-wide coordination to address the issue.”
Dr. Levine said the Council “will assure the right prioritization and guidelines are in place to provide pathways to prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.
The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.
The award amounts will vary by state.
The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.
The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.
, which fueled an increase in anxiety, depression, and overdose, said Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, MD, on the call.
“We know multiple stressors during the pandemic – isolation, sickness, grief, job loss, food instability, and loss of routines – have devastated many Americans and presented the unprecedented behavioral health challenges across the nation,” said Dr. Levine.
The HHS also announced that it is re-establishing a Behavioral Health Coordinating Council (BHCC). Dr. Levine and Mr. Coderre will serve as cochairs of the Council, which will coordinate action-oriented approaches to addressing the HHS’s behavioral health efforts.
However, in 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office criticized the BHCC for only focusing on the HHS, and noted the lack of coordination across the federal government’s various efforts to address mental health.
‘A huge step forward’
The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.
“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.”
APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, added: “This Council has great potential to ease the challenges we face as we begin to recover from the pandemic’s impact on our society, and [the] APA looks forward to assisting in their efforts.”
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra noted in a statement that the COVID-19 pandemic “has made clear the need to invest resources in our nation’s mental health and address the inequities that still exist around behavioral health care.” He added, “This national problem calls for department-wide coordination to address the issue.”
Dr. Levine said the Council “will assure the right prioritization and guidelines are in place to provide pathways to prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will inject billions of dollars into programs designed to address mental health and substance use disorders, including $3 billion released to states as of May 18, said federal officials.
The American Rescue Plan, a COVID-relief package signed into law in March, contained the money, which will be divided equally between the Community Mental Health Services Block Grant Program and the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Program, said Tom Coderre, Acting Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use, in a call with reporters.
The award amounts will vary by state.
The mental health program helps states and territories provide services for children with serious emotional issues and adults with serious mental illness.
The substance use program provides money to plan, implement, and evaluate prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.
, which fueled an increase in anxiety, depression, and overdose, said Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine, MD, on the call.
“We know multiple stressors during the pandemic – isolation, sickness, grief, job loss, food instability, and loss of routines – have devastated many Americans and presented the unprecedented behavioral health challenges across the nation,” said Dr. Levine.
The HHS also announced that it is re-establishing a Behavioral Health Coordinating Council (BHCC). Dr. Levine and Mr. Coderre will serve as cochairs of the Council, which will coordinate action-oriented approaches to addressing the HHS’s behavioral health efforts.
However, in 2014, the U.S. Government Accountability Office criticized the BHCC for only focusing on the HHS, and noted the lack of coordination across the federal government’s various efforts to address mental health.
‘A huge step forward’
The American Psychiatric Association welcomed the new money and the return of the council.
“In the wake of the pandemic an unprecedented, and as of yet untold, number of Americans are faced with mental health and substance use disorders, particularly in communities impacted by structural racism,” said APA President Vivian Pender, MD, in a statement. “With the creation of this Council and this investment in mental health, the administration is taking a huge step forward.”
APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, MD, MPA, added: “This Council has great potential to ease the challenges we face as we begin to recover from the pandemic’s impact on our society, and [the] APA looks forward to assisting in their efforts.”
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra noted in a statement that the COVID-19 pandemic “has made clear the need to invest resources in our nation’s mental health and address the inequities that still exist around behavioral health care.” He added, “This national problem calls for department-wide coordination to address the issue.”
Dr. Levine said the Council “will assure the right prioritization and guidelines are in place to provide pathways to prevention, intervention, treatment, and recovery services.”
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Acts of kindness, empathy bolster mental health
Sigmund Freud said, “Out of your vulnerabilities will come greatest strength.” What exactly did Dr. Freud mean by this?
Many aspects of mental health treatment include cognitive restructuring, behavioral changes, emotion processing, and setting boundaries. These are all critical aspects of treatment, but what about kindness and compassion?
We often forget that kindness requires us to be vulnerable and take a risk at times. Being kind to others is not always easy, and it is not always an automatic reaction. Vulnerability often involves risk, but the outcomes often outweigh fear.
Dr. Freud was highlighting that being kind, open, and honest will often result in strong character and resilience. In turn, it will help others. Psychology and psychiatry have proved time and time again that empathy, compassion, and kindness have numerous benefits for mental and physical health for both the giver and the receiver.
From a biological perspective, we know that acts of kindness signal the brain to release serotonin and dopamine, known as “feel good transmitters,” and endorphins, which in turn lessen pain, depression, and anxiety. According to Waguih W. Ishak, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles,1 in addition to boosting oxytocin and dopamine, being kind can increase serotonin, a neurotransmitter that helps regulate mood. Kindness and compassion have been shown to release oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” which increases self-esteem, trust, connection, and optimism. Oxytocin also reduces blood pressure and has been dubbed the “cardioprotective” hormone. According to Kelli Harding, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University in New York,2 kindness can extend the lifespan. Research from Emory University in Atlanta has shown that, when an individual is kind to another, the brain’s reward centers light up – resulting in a “helper’s high.” Thus, kindness is self-reinforcing.3
Kindness leads to a greater sense of connection to others and a lessening in feelings of isolation. Small acts of kindness build up compassion in oneself. Research indicates that kindness doesn’t just positively affect the giver and receiver but can also benefit onlookers. An article in Psychology Today,4 suggests that those who witness acts of kindness are also more likely to “pay it forward,” resulting in a domino effect. Along these same lines, altruistic people, specifically those who engage in charitable donations, expressed higher levels of overall happiness according to a 2010 Harvard Business School survey.5
“You can’t pour from an empty cup” is a trendy quote making its way around social media. Before we can be kind and compassionate to others, we must first be kind and compassionate to ourselves. In today’s world, productivity and pressure-filled environments consume us daily. We often find ourselves skipping meals, forgetting to connect with loved ones, missing breaks, and even neglecting our sleep. It is virtually impossible to care for others when we are depleted ourselves. Sometimes not prioritizing ourselves can result in collateral damage. We may become short-tempered, irritable, moody, and overwhelmed. At this point kindness, compassion, and empathy toward others are likely to be absent. Once we replenish ourselves, by taking time off, indulging in a nice meal, exercising, we are more likely to respond as opposed to react, ask others about themselves, and engage in overall positive interactions throughout our day. Kindness is best fostered by being kind to ourselves to sustain our own well-being and by being kind to others in order to maintain the cycle. For clinicians who have been pushed to respond to various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-care has never been more important.
COVID-19 has been difficult for everyone, particularly the elderly and vulnerable populations. However, kindness has proved to be an overwhelming response as many businesses and individuals have taken to volunteering time and resources for those in need. Even big corporations have chipped in. For example, Lyft and Uber – in a partnership with the White House – are now offering free rides to vaccine sites, and several local businesses have donated personal protective equipment to hospitals and assisted living facilities.
Kindness and empathy are ever present in the field of mental health, medicine, and substance use treatment. The very act of caring for another involves kindness. In medicine, empathy has been defined as “an emotional experience between an observer and a subject in which the observer, based on visual and auditory cues, identifies and transiently experiences the subject’s emotional state.”6
As mental health professionals, we receive empathy training early on in our schooling – increasingly so over the last decade. Research has indicated that trusting relationships between clinicians and patients result in optimal care. Evidence-based communication styles are being widely implemented. This entails using nonjudgmental language, open-ended questions, and active listening skills, for example. In addition, the mental health professionals have our conscious and unconscious judgments. If empathy training is provided, we can learn to acknowledge our biases and mitigate them. Lastly, empathy training has been proven to assist with destigmatization, increase in treatment seeking, and overall better outcomes.
Substance use treatment, which often focuses on cognition and behavior changing, boundaries, and family dynamics, also requires support and kindness. Although it is not an empirically based “treatment,” Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has used kindness for decades.
Step 12 of AA’s 12-step program, which was developed by two people with alcohol use disorder in 1935 in Akron, Ohio, is as follows: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.”
Once AA members are on solid ground with their sobriety, they are urged to help others in their recovery. This process provides many benefits. When individuals are concerned about someone else, they are less focused on themselves. This helps the individuals in recovery to decrease their rumination and “get out of themselves.” It also allows for the AA member to be kind and helpful to an individual who is suffering, thereby expressing kindness, compassion, and empathy. This act of “paying it forward” produces a domino effect that has withstood the test of time as evidenced by the ever-growing fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Several small acts of kindness can help us as clinicians and our patients:
1. Practice self-care.
2. Take a half day off from your practice.
3. Give staff a half day off.
4. Call a family member or friend and ask them how they are doing. Then engage in active listening and refrain from giving advice.
5. Donate to a homeless shelter or volunteer your time at a charity.
6. Give a stranger a compliment.
7. Surprise someone with a small gift.
8. Send a loved one a letter instead of a text.
9. Pick up litter.
10. Acknowledge family and friends who gave you extra support during the pandemic.
11. Take baked goods to your office.
12. Help a neighbor with groceries.
13. Leave a generous tip.
14. Play soft music in your office.
In conclusion, kindness, empathy, and compassion are vital concepts that are not just fluffy theories. They have vast mental, physical, and social benefits for us and our patients.
References
1. Cedars-Sinai staff. The Science of Kindness. 2019 Feb 13. Cedars-Sinai blog.
2. Harding K. The Rabbit Effect: Live Longer, Happier, and Healthier with the Groundbreaking Science of Kindness. Atria Books, 2019.
3. Ritvo E. BeKindr. Momosa Publishing, 2017.
4. Svoboda E. “Pay it Forward.” Psychology Today. Last reviewed 2016 Jun 9.
5. Aknin LB et al. “Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal.” Harvard Business School. Working Paper 11-038. 2010.
6. Hirsch EM. AMA J Ethics. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(6):423-7.
Dr. Haji is a licensed clinical psychologist specializing in psychodiagnostic assessment, forensic assessment, dual diagnosis, serious and persistent mental illness, depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and substance abuse treatment. She practices in Miami and has no conflicts of interest.
Sigmund Freud said, “Out of your vulnerabilities will come greatest strength.” What exactly did Dr. Freud mean by this?
Many aspects of mental health treatment include cognitive restructuring, behavioral changes, emotion processing, and setting boundaries. These are all critical aspects of treatment, but what about kindness and compassion?
We often forget that kindness requires us to be vulnerable and take a risk at times. Being kind to others is not always easy, and it is not always an automatic reaction. Vulnerability often involves risk, but the outcomes often outweigh fear.
Dr. Freud was highlighting that being kind, open, and honest will often result in strong character and resilience. In turn, it will help others. Psychology and psychiatry have proved time and time again that empathy, compassion, and kindness have numerous benefits for mental and physical health for both the giver and the receiver.
From a biological perspective, we know that acts of kindness signal the brain to release serotonin and dopamine, known as “feel good transmitters,” and endorphins, which in turn lessen pain, depression, and anxiety. According to Waguih W. Ishak, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles,1 in addition to boosting oxytocin and dopamine, being kind can increase serotonin, a neurotransmitter that helps regulate mood. Kindness and compassion have been shown to release oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” which increases self-esteem, trust, connection, and optimism. Oxytocin also reduces blood pressure and has been dubbed the “cardioprotective” hormone. According to Kelli Harding, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University in New York,2 kindness can extend the lifespan. Research from Emory University in Atlanta has shown that, when an individual is kind to another, the brain’s reward centers light up – resulting in a “helper’s high.” Thus, kindness is self-reinforcing.3
Kindness leads to a greater sense of connection to others and a lessening in feelings of isolation. Small acts of kindness build up compassion in oneself. Research indicates that kindness doesn’t just positively affect the giver and receiver but can also benefit onlookers. An article in Psychology Today,4 suggests that those who witness acts of kindness are also more likely to “pay it forward,” resulting in a domino effect. Along these same lines, altruistic people, specifically those who engage in charitable donations, expressed higher levels of overall happiness according to a 2010 Harvard Business School survey.5
“You can’t pour from an empty cup” is a trendy quote making its way around social media. Before we can be kind and compassionate to others, we must first be kind and compassionate to ourselves. In today’s world, productivity and pressure-filled environments consume us daily. We often find ourselves skipping meals, forgetting to connect with loved ones, missing breaks, and even neglecting our sleep. It is virtually impossible to care for others when we are depleted ourselves. Sometimes not prioritizing ourselves can result in collateral damage. We may become short-tempered, irritable, moody, and overwhelmed. At this point kindness, compassion, and empathy toward others are likely to be absent. Once we replenish ourselves, by taking time off, indulging in a nice meal, exercising, we are more likely to respond as opposed to react, ask others about themselves, and engage in overall positive interactions throughout our day. Kindness is best fostered by being kind to ourselves to sustain our own well-being and by being kind to others in order to maintain the cycle. For clinicians who have been pushed to respond to various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-care has never been more important.
COVID-19 has been difficult for everyone, particularly the elderly and vulnerable populations. However, kindness has proved to be an overwhelming response as many businesses and individuals have taken to volunteering time and resources for those in need. Even big corporations have chipped in. For example, Lyft and Uber – in a partnership with the White House – are now offering free rides to vaccine sites, and several local businesses have donated personal protective equipment to hospitals and assisted living facilities.
Kindness and empathy are ever present in the field of mental health, medicine, and substance use treatment. The very act of caring for another involves kindness. In medicine, empathy has been defined as “an emotional experience between an observer and a subject in which the observer, based on visual and auditory cues, identifies and transiently experiences the subject’s emotional state.”6
As mental health professionals, we receive empathy training early on in our schooling – increasingly so over the last decade. Research has indicated that trusting relationships between clinicians and patients result in optimal care. Evidence-based communication styles are being widely implemented. This entails using nonjudgmental language, open-ended questions, and active listening skills, for example. In addition, the mental health professionals have our conscious and unconscious judgments. If empathy training is provided, we can learn to acknowledge our biases and mitigate them. Lastly, empathy training has been proven to assist with destigmatization, increase in treatment seeking, and overall better outcomes.
Substance use treatment, which often focuses on cognition and behavior changing, boundaries, and family dynamics, also requires support and kindness. Although it is not an empirically based “treatment,” Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has used kindness for decades.
Step 12 of AA’s 12-step program, which was developed by two people with alcohol use disorder in 1935 in Akron, Ohio, is as follows: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.”
Once AA members are on solid ground with their sobriety, they are urged to help others in their recovery. This process provides many benefits. When individuals are concerned about someone else, they are less focused on themselves. This helps the individuals in recovery to decrease their rumination and “get out of themselves.” It also allows for the AA member to be kind and helpful to an individual who is suffering, thereby expressing kindness, compassion, and empathy. This act of “paying it forward” produces a domino effect that has withstood the test of time as evidenced by the ever-growing fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Several small acts of kindness can help us as clinicians and our patients:
1. Practice self-care.
2. Take a half day off from your practice.
3. Give staff a half day off.
4. Call a family member or friend and ask them how they are doing. Then engage in active listening and refrain from giving advice.
5. Donate to a homeless shelter or volunteer your time at a charity.
6. Give a stranger a compliment.
7. Surprise someone with a small gift.
8. Send a loved one a letter instead of a text.
9. Pick up litter.
10. Acknowledge family and friends who gave you extra support during the pandemic.
11. Take baked goods to your office.
12. Help a neighbor with groceries.
13. Leave a generous tip.
14. Play soft music in your office.
In conclusion, kindness, empathy, and compassion are vital concepts that are not just fluffy theories. They have vast mental, physical, and social benefits for us and our patients.
References
1. Cedars-Sinai staff. The Science of Kindness. 2019 Feb 13. Cedars-Sinai blog.
2. Harding K. The Rabbit Effect: Live Longer, Happier, and Healthier with the Groundbreaking Science of Kindness. Atria Books, 2019.
3. Ritvo E. BeKindr. Momosa Publishing, 2017.
4. Svoboda E. “Pay it Forward.” Psychology Today. Last reviewed 2016 Jun 9.
5. Aknin LB et al. “Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal.” Harvard Business School. Working Paper 11-038. 2010.
6. Hirsch EM. AMA J Ethics. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(6):423-7.
Dr. Haji is a licensed clinical psychologist specializing in psychodiagnostic assessment, forensic assessment, dual diagnosis, serious and persistent mental illness, depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and substance abuse treatment. She practices in Miami and has no conflicts of interest.
Sigmund Freud said, “Out of your vulnerabilities will come greatest strength.” What exactly did Dr. Freud mean by this?
Many aspects of mental health treatment include cognitive restructuring, behavioral changes, emotion processing, and setting boundaries. These are all critical aspects of treatment, but what about kindness and compassion?
We often forget that kindness requires us to be vulnerable and take a risk at times. Being kind to others is not always easy, and it is not always an automatic reaction. Vulnerability often involves risk, but the outcomes often outweigh fear.
Dr. Freud was highlighting that being kind, open, and honest will often result in strong character and resilience. In turn, it will help others. Psychology and psychiatry have proved time and time again that empathy, compassion, and kindness have numerous benefits for mental and physical health for both the giver and the receiver.
From a biological perspective, we know that acts of kindness signal the brain to release serotonin and dopamine, known as “feel good transmitters,” and endorphins, which in turn lessen pain, depression, and anxiety. According to Waguih W. Ishak, MD, a psychiatrist affiliated with Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles,1 in addition to boosting oxytocin and dopamine, being kind can increase serotonin, a neurotransmitter that helps regulate mood. Kindness and compassion have been shown to release oxytocin, known as the “love hormone,” which increases self-esteem, trust, connection, and optimism. Oxytocin also reduces blood pressure and has been dubbed the “cardioprotective” hormone. According to Kelli Harding, MD, MPH, a psychiatrist affiliated with Columbia University in New York,2 kindness can extend the lifespan. Research from Emory University in Atlanta has shown that, when an individual is kind to another, the brain’s reward centers light up – resulting in a “helper’s high.” Thus, kindness is self-reinforcing.3
Kindness leads to a greater sense of connection to others and a lessening in feelings of isolation. Small acts of kindness build up compassion in oneself. Research indicates that kindness doesn’t just positively affect the giver and receiver but can also benefit onlookers. An article in Psychology Today,4 suggests that those who witness acts of kindness are also more likely to “pay it forward,” resulting in a domino effect. Along these same lines, altruistic people, specifically those who engage in charitable donations, expressed higher levels of overall happiness according to a 2010 Harvard Business School survey.5
“You can’t pour from an empty cup” is a trendy quote making its way around social media. Before we can be kind and compassionate to others, we must first be kind and compassionate to ourselves. In today’s world, productivity and pressure-filled environments consume us daily. We often find ourselves skipping meals, forgetting to connect with loved ones, missing breaks, and even neglecting our sleep. It is virtually impossible to care for others when we are depleted ourselves. Sometimes not prioritizing ourselves can result in collateral damage. We may become short-tempered, irritable, moody, and overwhelmed. At this point kindness, compassion, and empathy toward others are likely to be absent. Once we replenish ourselves, by taking time off, indulging in a nice meal, exercising, we are more likely to respond as opposed to react, ask others about themselves, and engage in overall positive interactions throughout our day. Kindness is best fostered by being kind to ourselves to sustain our own well-being and by being kind to others in order to maintain the cycle. For clinicians who have been pushed to respond to various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-care has never been more important.
COVID-19 has been difficult for everyone, particularly the elderly and vulnerable populations. However, kindness has proved to be an overwhelming response as many businesses and individuals have taken to volunteering time and resources for those in need. Even big corporations have chipped in. For example, Lyft and Uber – in a partnership with the White House – are now offering free rides to vaccine sites, and several local businesses have donated personal protective equipment to hospitals and assisted living facilities.
Kindness and empathy are ever present in the field of mental health, medicine, and substance use treatment. The very act of caring for another involves kindness. In medicine, empathy has been defined as “an emotional experience between an observer and a subject in which the observer, based on visual and auditory cues, identifies and transiently experiences the subject’s emotional state.”6
As mental health professionals, we receive empathy training early on in our schooling – increasingly so over the last decade. Research has indicated that trusting relationships between clinicians and patients result in optimal care. Evidence-based communication styles are being widely implemented. This entails using nonjudgmental language, open-ended questions, and active listening skills, for example. In addition, the mental health professionals have our conscious and unconscious judgments. If empathy training is provided, we can learn to acknowledge our biases and mitigate them. Lastly, empathy training has been proven to assist with destigmatization, increase in treatment seeking, and overall better outcomes.
Substance use treatment, which often focuses on cognition and behavior changing, boundaries, and family dynamics, also requires support and kindness. Although it is not an empirically based “treatment,” Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) has used kindness for decades.
Step 12 of AA’s 12-step program, which was developed by two people with alcohol use disorder in 1935 in Akron, Ohio, is as follows: “Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.”
Once AA members are on solid ground with their sobriety, they are urged to help others in their recovery. This process provides many benefits. When individuals are concerned about someone else, they are less focused on themselves. This helps the individuals in recovery to decrease their rumination and “get out of themselves.” It also allows for the AA member to be kind and helpful to an individual who is suffering, thereby expressing kindness, compassion, and empathy. This act of “paying it forward” produces a domino effect that has withstood the test of time as evidenced by the ever-growing fellowship of Alcoholics Anonymous.
Several small acts of kindness can help us as clinicians and our patients:
1. Practice self-care.
2. Take a half day off from your practice.
3. Give staff a half day off.
4. Call a family member or friend and ask them how they are doing. Then engage in active listening and refrain from giving advice.
5. Donate to a homeless shelter or volunteer your time at a charity.
6. Give a stranger a compliment.
7. Surprise someone with a small gift.
8. Send a loved one a letter instead of a text.
9. Pick up litter.
10. Acknowledge family and friends who gave you extra support during the pandemic.
11. Take baked goods to your office.
12. Help a neighbor with groceries.
13. Leave a generous tip.
14. Play soft music in your office.
In conclusion, kindness, empathy, and compassion are vital concepts that are not just fluffy theories. They have vast mental, physical, and social benefits for us and our patients.
References
1. Cedars-Sinai staff. The Science of Kindness. 2019 Feb 13. Cedars-Sinai blog.
2. Harding K. The Rabbit Effect: Live Longer, Happier, and Healthier with the Groundbreaking Science of Kindness. Atria Books, 2019.
3. Ritvo E. BeKindr. Momosa Publishing, 2017.
4. Svoboda E. “Pay it Forward.” Psychology Today. Last reviewed 2016 Jun 9.
5. Aknin LB et al. “Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal.” Harvard Business School. Working Paper 11-038. 2010.
6. Hirsch EM. AMA J Ethics. Virtual Mentor. 2007;9(6):423-7.
Dr. Haji is a licensed clinical psychologist specializing in psychodiagnostic assessment, forensic assessment, dual diagnosis, serious and persistent mental illness, depression, anxiety, personality disorders, and substance abuse treatment. She practices in Miami and has no conflicts of interest.
Depot buprenorphine a shot in the arm for opioid addiction?
Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.
In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.
“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.
“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.
The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.
The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.
The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).
Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.
The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.
“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.
“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
Giving patients a voice
In an invited commentary, from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.
The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.
The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.
“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.
In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.
This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.
In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.
“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.
“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.
The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.
The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.
The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).
Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.
The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.
“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.
“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
Giving patients a voice
In an invited commentary, from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.
The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.
The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.
“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.
In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.
This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Adults in treatment for opioid dependence report high satisfaction with buprenorphine injections, in new findings that researchers say could help improve treatment and management of patients with opioid dependence.
In the DEBUT trial, patients who received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine had significantly higher overall treatment satisfaction, reduced treatment burden, and higher quality-of-life ratings than peers who received daily treatment with sublingual buprenorphine.
“The study’s focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help to better inform patients and clinicians when selecting treatment options than the clinical traditional outcomes of opioid dependence treatment studies,” lead investigator Fredrik Tiberg, PhD, president and CEO of Camurus, a pharmaceutical company in Lund, Sweden, said in an interview.
“The positive patient experiences with the depot buprenorphine injection reported in the DEBUT study indicate that long-acting treatments could contribute to advancing the quality of care and access to treatment for patients with opioid dependence/use disorder,” said Dr. Tiberg.
The study was published online May 10 in JAMA Network Open.
Novel study
The study was an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled trial that included 119 patients from six outpatient clinics in Australia; 60 received weekly or monthly depot buprenorphine and 59 received sublingual buprenorphine for 24 weeks.
The primary outcome was global treatment satisfaction, as measured by the 14-question Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM) at the end of the study at week 24.
The study met its primary endpoint with a significantly higher TSQM global satisfaction score among adults who received depot injections, compared with those who received sublingual buprenorphine (mean score 82.5 vs. 74.3; difference, 8.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-14.6; P = .01).
Improvement was also observed for several secondary outcomes, including decreased treatment burden and higher quality of life.
The safety profile was consistent with the known safety profile of buprenorphine, aside from transient, mild-to-moderate injection site reactions.
“To our knowledge, this is the first randomized study that has used a range of PROs to compare outcomes between a long-acting injection and daily dosing of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence,” the investigators note.
“The study highlights the application of PROs as alternate endpoints to traditional markers of substance use in addiction treatment outcome studies,” they conclude.
Giving patients a voice
In an invited commentary, from most of the work in medication development, including for opioid use disorder.
The current study addresses this very issue in a “well designed and executed” fashion and the results “consistently demonstrated” the superiority of injectable buprenorphine across many outcomes.
The study highlights the importance of considering PRO measures in clinical trials, Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton say.
“Even if efficacy is no different for various formulations, PROs may provide an important reason to select a new formulation. Patient preferences and apparently improved function may prove to be useful secondary outcomes in medication trials, and the measures used in this new study deserve consideration,” they write.
In addition, the greater treatment satisfaction by patients receiving extended-release buprenorphine suggests that these formulations “might help to improve long-term retention and, as such, be a valuable tool to help combat the current opioid epidemic and reduce its associated mortality,” they conclude.
This study was supported by Camurus AB. Dr. Tiberg is president and CEO of Camurus AB. A complete list of author disclosures is with the original article. Dr. Volkow and Dr. Compton have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Heavy cannabis use in pregnancy correlates with risks to infant
Cannabis use that interferes with a woman’s ability to function during pregnancy is a risk factor for severe health problems in the child, new research indicates.
Pregnant women with cannabis use disorder are more likely to have children with low birth weights and children who die within 1 year of birth, compared with matched controls, according to a study published online in Addiction.
The death rate among infants exposed to prenatal cannabis use disorder was 0.98%, compared with 0.75% among infants whose mothers did not have this diagnosis.
Cannabis use disorder during pregnancy “has increased dramatically in the past two decades,” but few studies have examined the health impacts on offspring, study author Yuyan Shi, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly concerning in states with cannabis legalization where cannabis is increasingly available.”
Dr. Shi, a researcher at the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues analyzed data from more than 4.8 million mothers who delivered a live singleton birth in California between 2001 and 2012 and their infants. They focused on 20,237 mothers who had a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder at delivery. The disorder is defined by continued use of the drug despite impairments in physical, psychological, and social functioning.
The researchers matched mothers with cannabis use disorder 1:2 to mothers who did not have this diagnosis. They aimed to balance factors such as maternal age, educational attainment, health insurance, physical and mental health conditions, prenatal care, and alcohol and opioid use disorder.
An increasingly common diagnosis
Over the study period, the rate of cannabis use disorder increased from 2.8 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 2001 to 6.9 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 2012.
Cannabis use disorder was associated with increased odds of preterm birth (odds ratio, 1.06), small for gestational age (OR, 1.13), low birth weight (OR, 1.13), and death within 1 year of birth (OR, 1.35), according to the researchers’ estimates. Cannabis use disorder was associated with lower odds of hospitalization within 1 year of birth, however (OR, 0.91).
“The most notable observation is that exposed infants were 35% more likely to die within 1 year of birth than unexposed infants,” Dr. Shi and colleagues wrote. More research is needed to understand the causes of death at different stages of infancy, they said.
The results “imply that cannabis use disorder screening as well as appropriate education, counseling, or referral to substance abuse treatment services should be encouraged among pregnant women,” Dr. Shi said.
The study does not establish that cannabis use disorder causes adverse effects, and it is not clear how the results might apply to mothers who use cannabis but do not meet diagnostic criteria for the disorder, the authors noted.
“Presumably the health consequences of mothers who use cannabis but do not meet the criteria ... are less severe than mothers with cannabis use disorder,” Dr. Shi said. “Unfortunately, no research has been conducted to test this hypothesis.”
Enough data to recommend abstaining
Many clinicians may not feel equipped to make a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder, said Jamie Lo, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.
Although many clinicians ask patients about substance use in general, specifically screening for cannabis use is not necessarily routine practice. “I think people are starting to adopt that, but it probably will take a little bit of time,” Dr. Lo said.
Dr. Lo, who was not involved in the study, researches the effects of marijuana during pregnancy.
Confounding factors such as frequent co-use of tobacco have so far made it “difficult to suss out” whether observed effects are directly from cannabis use, other substances or exposures, or a combination, said Dr. Lo. The possibility that stigma may lead to inaccurate self-reporting poses another challenge. And the range of cannabis delivery devices further complicates matters.
“It is hard to compare smoking a bowl versus a joint versus using the oils or CBD or edibles,” Dr. Lo said. The data regarding cigarettes and alcohol are cleaner and more precise, in comparison.
Still, federal agencies and professional societies agree that “what we do know is enough to recommend that pregnant women abstain from using cannabis during pregnancy,” Dr. Lo said.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse, which funded the study, said the results add to the evidence that prenatal exposure to cannabis may be associated with poor birth outcomes and infant health.
“While we cannot establish that cannabis use caused negative outcomes in this study, these data reinforce the case for caution around using cannabis during pregnancy,” Nora D. Volkow, MD, the director of the agency, said in a news release.
“Careful analysis of data like these is one way we can responsibly study how cannabis use affects the developing child, all while a natural experiment is playing out across our country in places where cannabis is becoming widely available to pregnant consumers.”
The study authors and Dr. Lo had no disclosures.
Cannabis use that interferes with a woman’s ability to function during pregnancy is a risk factor for severe health problems in the child, new research indicates.
Pregnant women with cannabis use disorder are more likely to have children with low birth weights and children who die within 1 year of birth, compared with matched controls, according to a study published online in Addiction.
The death rate among infants exposed to prenatal cannabis use disorder was 0.98%, compared with 0.75% among infants whose mothers did not have this diagnosis.
Cannabis use disorder during pregnancy “has increased dramatically in the past two decades,” but few studies have examined the health impacts on offspring, study author Yuyan Shi, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly concerning in states with cannabis legalization where cannabis is increasingly available.”
Dr. Shi, a researcher at the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues analyzed data from more than 4.8 million mothers who delivered a live singleton birth in California between 2001 and 2012 and their infants. They focused on 20,237 mothers who had a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder at delivery. The disorder is defined by continued use of the drug despite impairments in physical, psychological, and social functioning.
The researchers matched mothers with cannabis use disorder 1:2 to mothers who did not have this diagnosis. They aimed to balance factors such as maternal age, educational attainment, health insurance, physical and mental health conditions, prenatal care, and alcohol and opioid use disorder.
An increasingly common diagnosis
Over the study period, the rate of cannabis use disorder increased from 2.8 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 2001 to 6.9 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 2012.
Cannabis use disorder was associated with increased odds of preterm birth (odds ratio, 1.06), small for gestational age (OR, 1.13), low birth weight (OR, 1.13), and death within 1 year of birth (OR, 1.35), according to the researchers’ estimates. Cannabis use disorder was associated with lower odds of hospitalization within 1 year of birth, however (OR, 0.91).
“The most notable observation is that exposed infants were 35% more likely to die within 1 year of birth than unexposed infants,” Dr. Shi and colleagues wrote. More research is needed to understand the causes of death at different stages of infancy, they said.
The results “imply that cannabis use disorder screening as well as appropriate education, counseling, or referral to substance abuse treatment services should be encouraged among pregnant women,” Dr. Shi said.
The study does not establish that cannabis use disorder causes adverse effects, and it is not clear how the results might apply to mothers who use cannabis but do not meet diagnostic criteria for the disorder, the authors noted.
“Presumably the health consequences of mothers who use cannabis but do not meet the criteria ... are less severe than mothers with cannabis use disorder,” Dr. Shi said. “Unfortunately, no research has been conducted to test this hypothesis.”
Enough data to recommend abstaining
Many clinicians may not feel equipped to make a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder, said Jamie Lo, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.
Although many clinicians ask patients about substance use in general, specifically screening for cannabis use is not necessarily routine practice. “I think people are starting to adopt that, but it probably will take a little bit of time,” Dr. Lo said.
Dr. Lo, who was not involved in the study, researches the effects of marijuana during pregnancy.
Confounding factors such as frequent co-use of tobacco have so far made it “difficult to suss out” whether observed effects are directly from cannabis use, other substances or exposures, or a combination, said Dr. Lo. The possibility that stigma may lead to inaccurate self-reporting poses another challenge. And the range of cannabis delivery devices further complicates matters.
“It is hard to compare smoking a bowl versus a joint versus using the oils or CBD or edibles,” Dr. Lo said. The data regarding cigarettes and alcohol are cleaner and more precise, in comparison.
Still, federal agencies and professional societies agree that “what we do know is enough to recommend that pregnant women abstain from using cannabis during pregnancy,” Dr. Lo said.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse, which funded the study, said the results add to the evidence that prenatal exposure to cannabis may be associated with poor birth outcomes and infant health.
“While we cannot establish that cannabis use caused negative outcomes in this study, these data reinforce the case for caution around using cannabis during pregnancy,” Nora D. Volkow, MD, the director of the agency, said in a news release.
“Careful analysis of data like these is one way we can responsibly study how cannabis use affects the developing child, all while a natural experiment is playing out across our country in places where cannabis is becoming widely available to pregnant consumers.”
The study authors and Dr. Lo had no disclosures.
Cannabis use that interferes with a woman’s ability to function during pregnancy is a risk factor for severe health problems in the child, new research indicates.
Pregnant women with cannabis use disorder are more likely to have children with low birth weights and children who die within 1 year of birth, compared with matched controls, according to a study published online in Addiction.
The death rate among infants exposed to prenatal cannabis use disorder was 0.98%, compared with 0.75% among infants whose mothers did not have this diagnosis.
Cannabis use disorder during pregnancy “has increased dramatically in the past two decades,” but few studies have examined the health impacts on offspring, study author Yuyan Shi, PhD, said in an interview. “It is particularly concerning in states with cannabis legalization where cannabis is increasingly available.”
Dr. Shi, a researcher at the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health and Human Longevity Science at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues analyzed data from more than 4.8 million mothers who delivered a live singleton birth in California between 2001 and 2012 and their infants. They focused on 20,237 mothers who had a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder at delivery. The disorder is defined by continued use of the drug despite impairments in physical, psychological, and social functioning.
The researchers matched mothers with cannabis use disorder 1:2 to mothers who did not have this diagnosis. They aimed to balance factors such as maternal age, educational attainment, health insurance, physical and mental health conditions, prenatal care, and alcohol and opioid use disorder.
An increasingly common diagnosis
Over the study period, the rate of cannabis use disorder increased from 2.8 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 2001 to 6.9 cases per 1,000 deliveries in 2012.
Cannabis use disorder was associated with increased odds of preterm birth (odds ratio, 1.06), small for gestational age (OR, 1.13), low birth weight (OR, 1.13), and death within 1 year of birth (OR, 1.35), according to the researchers’ estimates. Cannabis use disorder was associated with lower odds of hospitalization within 1 year of birth, however (OR, 0.91).
“The most notable observation is that exposed infants were 35% more likely to die within 1 year of birth than unexposed infants,” Dr. Shi and colleagues wrote. More research is needed to understand the causes of death at different stages of infancy, they said.
The results “imply that cannabis use disorder screening as well as appropriate education, counseling, or referral to substance abuse treatment services should be encouraged among pregnant women,” Dr. Shi said.
The study does not establish that cannabis use disorder causes adverse effects, and it is not clear how the results might apply to mothers who use cannabis but do not meet diagnostic criteria for the disorder, the authors noted.
“Presumably the health consequences of mothers who use cannabis but do not meet the criteria ... are less severe than mothers with cannabis use disorder,” Dr. Shi said. “Unfortunately, no research has been conducted to test this hypothesis.”
Enough data to recommend abstaining
Many clinicians may not feel equipped to make a diagnosis of cannabis use disorder, said Jamie Lo, MD, assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland.
Although many clinicians ask patients about substance use in general, specifically screening for cannabis use is not necessarily routine practice. “I think people are starting to adopt that, but it probably will take a little bit of time,” Dr. Lo said.
Dr. Lo, who was not involved in the study, researches the effects of marijuana during pregnancy.
Confounding factors such as frequent co-use of tobacco have so far made it “difficult to suss out” whether observed effects are directly from cannabis use, other substances or exposures, or a combination, said Dr. Lo. The possibility that stigma may lead to inaccurate self-reporting poses another challenge. And the range of cannabis delivery devices further complicates matters.
“It is hard to compare smoking a bowl versus a joint versus using the oils or CBD or edibles,” Dr. Lo said. The data regarding cigarettes and alcohol are cleaner and more precise, in comparison.
Still, federal agencies and professional societies agree that “what we do know is enough to recommend that pregnant women abstain from using cannabis during pregnancy,” Dr. Lo said.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse, which funded the study, said the results add to the evidence that prenatal exposure to cannabis may be associated with poor birth outcomes and infant health.
“While we cannot establish that cannabis use caused negative outcomes in this study, these data reinforce the case for caution around using cannabis during pregnancy,” Nora D. Volkow, MD, the director of the agency, said in a news release.
“Careful analysis of data like these is one way we can responsibly study how cannabis use affects the developing child, all while a natural experiment is playing out across our country in places where cannabis is becoming widely available to pregnant consumers.”
The study authors and Dr. Lo had no disclosures.
Opioid addiction meds may curb growing problem of kratom dependence
Medications typically used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) may* also be effective for the growing public health problem of kratom addiction, new research shows.
Results of a comprehensive literature review and an expert survey suggest buprenorphine, naltrexone, and methadone may be effective for patients seeking help for kratom addiction, and if further research confirms these findings, the indication for OUD medications could potentially be expanded to include moderate-to-severe kratom addiction, study investigator Saeed Ahmed, MD, medical director of West Ridge Center at Rutland Regional Medical Center, Rutland, Vermont, said in an interview.
Dr. Ahmed, who practices general psychiatry and addiction psychiatry, presented the findings at the virtual American Psychiatric Association 2021 Annual Meeting.
Emerging public health problem
Kratom can be ingested in pill or capsule form or as an extract. Its leaves can be chewed or dried and powdered to make a tea. It can also be incorporated into topical creams, balms, or tinctures.
Products containing the substance are “readily available and legal for sale in many states and cities in the U.S.,” said Dr. Ahmed, adding that it can be purchased online or at local smoke shops and is increasingly used by individuals to self-treat a variety of conditions including pain, anxiety, and mood conditions and as an opioid substitute.
As reported by this news organization, a 2018 analysis conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showed kratom is, in fact, an opioid, a finding that garnered significant push-back from the American Kratom Association.
Kratom addiction is an “emerging public health problem,” said Dr. Ahmed, adding that in recent years the number of calls to poison control centers across the country has increased 52-fold – from one per month to two per day. He believes misinformation through social media has helped fuel its use.
Kratom use, the investigators note, can lead to muscle pain, weight loss, insomnia, hallucinations and, in some cases (particularly when combined with synthetic opioids or benzodiazepines), it can lead to respiratory depression, seizures, coma, and death.
In addition,
To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic literature search for cases pertaining to maintenance treatment for kratom dependence. They also tapped into case reports and scientific posters from reliable online sources and conference proceedings. In addition, they conducted a survey of members from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM).
The researchers found 14 reports of long-term management of kratom addiction, half of which did not involve an OUD. It’s important to exclude OUDs to avoid possible confounding.
In most cases, buprenorphine was used, but in a few cases naltrexone or methadone were prescribed. All cases had a favorable outcome. Dr. Ahmed noted that buprenorphine maintenance doses appear to be lower than those required to effectively treat OUD.
With a response rate of 11.5% (82 respondents) the ASAM survey results showed 82.6% of respondents (n = 57) had experience managing KUD, including 27.5% (n = 19) who had kratom addiction only. Of these, 89.5% (n = 17-19), used buprenorphine to manage KUD and of these, 6 combined it with talk therapy.
Dr. Ahmed cautioned that the included cases varied significantly in terms of relevant data, including kratom dose and route of administration, toxicology screening used to monitor abstinence, and duration of maintenance follow-up.
Despite these limitations, the review and survey underscore the importance of including moderate to severe kratom dependence as an indication for current OUD medications, the researchers note.
Including kratom addiction as an indication for these medications is important, especially for patients who are heavily addicted, to meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe SUD, they add.
In addition, the researchers recommend that clinicians consider referring patients with moderate to severe kratom dependence for counseling or enrollment in 12-step addiction treatment programs.
A separate diagnosis?
Dr. Ahmed said he would like to see kratom dependence included in the DSM-5 as a separate entity because it is a botanical with properties similar to, but different from, traditional opioids.
“This will not only help to better inform clinicians about a diagnostic criteria encompassing problematic use and facilitate screening, but it will also pave the way for treatments to be explored for this diagnosable condition,” he said. Dr. Ahmed pointed to a review published in the Wisconsin Medical Journal earlier this year that explored potential treatments for kratom dependence.
Commenting on the study for an interview, Petros Levounis, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, and associate dean for professional development, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the authors “have done a great job reviewing the literature and asking experts” about kratom addiction treatment.
“The punchline of their study is that kratom behaves very much like an opioid and is treated like an opioid.”
Dr. Levounis noted that kratom dependence is so new that experts don’t know much about it. However, he added, emerging evidence suggests that kratom “should be considered an opioid more than anything else,” but specified that he does not believe it warrants its own diagnosis.
He noted that individual opioids don’t have their own diagnostic category and that opioid use disorder is an umbrella term that covers all of these drugs.
Dr. Ahmed and Dr. Levounis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*Updated 5/18/2021
Medications typically used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) may* also be effective for the growing public health problem of kratom addiction, new research shows.
Results of a comprehensive literature review and an expert survey suggest buprenorphine, naltrexone, and methadone may be effective for patients seeking help for kratom addiction, and if further research confirms these findings, the indication for OUD medications could potentially be expanded to include moderate-to-severe kratom addiction, study investigator Saeed Ahmed, MD, medical director of West Ridge Center at Rutland Regional Medical Center, Rutland, Vermont, said in an interview.
Dr. Ahmed, who practices general psychiatry and addiction psychiatry, presented the findings at the virtual American Psychiatric Association 2021 Annual Meeting.
Emerging public health problem
Kratom can be ingested in pill or capsule form or as an extract. Its leaves can be chewed or dried and powdered to make a tea. It can also be incorporated into topical creams, balms, or tinctures.
Products containing the substance are “readily available and legal for sale in many states and cities in the U.S.,” said Dr. Ahmed, adding that it can be purchased online or at local smoke shops and is increasingly used by individuals to self-treat a variety of conditions including pain, anxiety, and mood conditions and as an opioid substitute.
As reported by this news organization, a 2018 analysis conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showed kratom is, in fact, an opioid, a finding that garnered significant push-back from the American Kratom Association.
Kratom addiction is an “emerging public health problem,” said Dr. Ahmed, adding that in recent years the number of calls to poison control centers across the country has increased 52-fold – from one per month to two per day. He believes misinformation through social media has helped fuel its use.
Kratom use, the investigators note, can lead to muscle pain, weight loss, insomnia, hallucinations and, in some cases (particularly when combined with synthetic opioids or benzodiazepines), it can lead to respiratory depression, seizures, coma, and death.
In addition,
To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic literature search for cases pertaining to maintenance treatment for kratom dependence. They also tapped into case reports and scientific posters from reliable online sources and conference proceedings. In addition, they conducted a survey of members from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM).
The researchers found 14 reports of long-term management of kratom addiction, half of which did not involve an OUD. It’s important to exclude OUDs to avoid possible confounding.
In most cases, buprenorphine was used, but in a few cases naltrexone or methadone were prescribed. All cases had a favorable outcome. Dr. Ahmed noted that buprenorphine maintenance doses appear to be lower than those required to effectively treat OUD.
With a response rate of 11.5% (82 respondents) the ASAM survey results showed 82.6% of respondents (n = 57) had experience managing KUD, including 27.5% (n = 19) who had kratom addiction only. Of these, 89.5% (n = 17-19), used buprenorphine to manage KUD and of these, 6 combined it with talk therapy.
Dr. Ahmed cautioned that the included cases varied significantly in terms of relevant data, including kratom dose and route of administration, toxicology screening used to monitor abstinence, and duration of maintenance follow-up.
Despite these limitations, the review and survey underscore the importance of including moderate to severe kratom dependence as an indication for current OUD medications, the researchers note.
Including kratom addiction as an indication for these medications is important, especially for patients who are heavily addicted, to meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe SUD, they add.
In addition, the researchers recommend that clinicians consider referring patients with moderate to severe kratom dependence for counseling or enrollment in 12-step addiction treatment programs.
A separate diagnosis?
Dr. Ahmed said he would like to see kratom dependence included in the DSM-5 as a separate entity because it is a botanical with properties similar to, but different from, traditional opioids.
“This will not only help to better inform clinicians about a diagnostic criteria encompassing problematic use and facilitate screening, but it will also pave the way for treatments to be explored for this diagnosable condition,” he said. Dr. Ahmed pointed to a review published in the Wisconsin Medical Journal earlier this year that explored potential treatments for kratom dependence.
Commenting on the study for an interview, Petros Levounis, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, and associate dean for professional development, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the authors “have done a great job reviewing the literature and asking experts” about kratom addiction treatment.
“The punchline of their study is that kratom behaves very much like an opioid and is treated like an opioid.”
Dr. Levounis noted that kratom dependence is so new that experts don’t know much about it. However, he added, emerging evidence suggests that kratom “should be considered an opioid more than anything else,” but specified that he does not believe it warrants its own diagnosis.
He noted that individual opioids don’t have their own diagnostic category and that opioid use disorder is an umbrella term that covers all of these drugs.
Dr. Ahmed and Dr. Levounis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*Updated 5/18/2021
Medications typically used to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) may* also be effective for the growing public health problem of kratom addiction, new research shows.
Results of a comprehensive literature review and an expert survey suggest buprenorphine, naltrexone, and methadone may be effective for patients seeking help for kratom addiction, and if further research confirms these findings, the indication for OUD medications could potentially be expanded to include moderate-to-severe kratom addiction, study investigator Saeed Ahmed, MD, medical director of West Ridge Center at Rutland Regional Medical Center, Rutland, Vermont, said in an interview.
Dr. Ahmed, who practices general psychiatry and addiction psychiatry, presented the findings at the virtual American Psychiatric Association 2021 Annual Meeting.
Emerging public health problem
Kratom can be ingested in pill or capsule form or as an extract. Its leaves can be chewed or dried and powdered to make a tea. It can also be incorporated into topical creams, balms, or tinctures.
Products containing the substance are “readily available and legal for sale in many states and cities in the U.S.,” said Dr. Ahmed, adding that it can be purchased online or at local smoke shops and is increasingly used by individuals to self-treat a variety of conditions including pain, anxiety, and mood conditions and as an opioid substitute.
As reported by this news organization, a 2018 analysis conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration showed kratom is, in fact, an opioid, a finding that garnered significant push-back from the American Kratom Association.
Kratom addiction is an “emerging public health problem,” said Dr. Ahmed, adding that in recent years the number of calls to poison control centers across the country has increased 52-fold – from one per month to two per day. He believes misinformation through social media has helped fuel its use.
Kratom use, the investigators note, can lead to muscle pain, weight loss, insomnia, hallucinations and, in some cases (particularly when combined with synthetic opioids or benzodiazepines), it can lead to respiratory depression, seizures, coma, and death.
In addition,
To investigate, the researchers conducted a systematic literature search for cases pertaining to maintenance treatment for kratom dependence. They also tapped into case reports and scientific posters from reliable online sources and conference proceedings. In addition, they conducted a survey of members from the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM).
The researchers found 14 reports of long-term management of kratom addiction, half of which did not involve an OUD. It’s important to exclude OUDs to avoid possible confounding.
In most cases, buprenorphine was used, but in a few cases naltrexone or methadone were prescribed. All cases had a favorable outcome. Dr. Ahmed noted that buprenorphine maintenance doses appear to be lower than those required to effectively treat OUD.
With a response rate of 11.5% (82 respondents) the ASAM survey results showed 82.6% of respondents (n = 57) had experience managing KUD, including 27.5% (n = 19) who had kratom addiction only. Of these, 89.5% (n = 17-19), used buprenorphine to manage KUD and of these, 6 combined it with talk therapy.
Dr. Ahmed cautioned that the included cases varied significantly in terms of relevant data, including kratom dose and route of administration, toxicology screening used to monitor abstinence, and duration of maintenance follow-up.
Despite these limitations, the review and survey underscore the importance of including moderate to severe kratom dependence as an indication for current OUD medications, the researchers note.
Including kratom addiction as an indication for these medications is important, especially for patients who are heavily addicted, to meet DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for moderate or severe SUD, they add.
In addition, the researchers recommend that clinicians consider referring patients with moderate to severe kratom dependence for counseling or enrollment in 12-step addiction treatment programs.
A separate diagnosis?
Dr. Ahmed said he would like to see kratom dependence included in the DSM-5 as a separate entity because it is a botanical with properties similar to, but different from, traditional opioids.
“This will not only help to better inform clinicians about a diagnostic criteria encompassing problematic use and facilitate screening, but it will also pave the way for treatments to be explored for this diagnosable condition,” he said. Dr. Ahmed pointed to a review published in the Wisconsin Medical Journal earlier this year that explored potential treatments for kratom dependence.
Commenting on the study for an interview, Petros Levounis, MD, professor and chair, department of psychiatry, and associate dean for professional development, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, said the authors “have done a great job reviewing the literature and asking experts” about kratom addiction treatment.
“The punchline of their study is that kratom behaves very much like an opioid and is treated like an opioid.”
Dr. Levounis noted that kratom dependence is so new that experts don’t know much about it. However, he added, emerging evidence suggests that kratom “should be considered an opioid more than anything else,” but specified that he does not believe it warrants its own diagnosis.
He noted that individual opioids don’t have their own diagnostic category and that opioid use disorder is an umbrella term that covers all of these drugs.
Dr. Ahmed and Dr. Levounis have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
*Updated 5/18/2021
Blood biomarker a ‘promising’ predictor of psychosis relapse
Copeptin, a small peptide secreted with the hormone vasopressin, appears to be one of the first promising biomarkers for predicting psychosis relapse, results of an observational study suggest.
An analysis of plasma copeptin levels in patients with schizophrenia showed those with high plasma levels of the peptide were about three times more likely to experience psychotic relapse, compared with their counterparts with lower levels.
The results suggest, “copeptin could be a promising biomarker in predicting psychotic relapse in schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” said study investigator Jennifer Küster, MD, University Psychiatric Clinics Basel (Switzerland). Measuring copeptin levels upon hospital admission “could help to intensify” the care of at-risk patients, she added.
The findings were presented at the virtual Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society 2021.
Relapse prevention important
Two-thirds of patients with schizophrenia experience at least one relapse of a psychotic episode, which in turn increases the risk of the disorder having a chronic course, Dr. Küster noted.
In addition, a psychotic relapse is associated with deterioration of function and cognition and reduced treatment response, “so relapse prevention is important,” she said.
Previous research has explored various methods of predicting schizophrenia outcomes. These include measuring inflammatory markers, catecholamines, oxytocin, and cortisol in combination with imaging markers, “but so far no reliable biomarker has been found,” Dr. Küster said.
She noted that psychotic relapse is associated with increased psychological stress – and vasopressin, which is secreted by the pituitary gland, is a known marker of stress. It is involved in sodium homeostasis and higher brain function and is also elevated in acute psychosis.
However, vasopressin “is challenging to measure because assays are complicated and unreliable,” Dr. Küster said.
As a result, the researchers turned their attention to copeptin, a more stable, more reliable surrogate marker for vasopressin. Copeptin has been shown previously to be a predictor of outcomes in somatic diseases and is also increased during psychological distress.
To measure the utility of copeptin in predicting psychotic relapse,
Baseline characteristics were collected and fasting serum copeptin levels were measured. Disease severity was measured using a range of validated assessment scales.
Predictive factor
Among 69 patients available for analysis, 30 experienced psychotic relapse at 1-year follow-up. Relapse was defined as rehospitalization because of an acute psychotic episode.
There were no differences in baseline demographic characteristics between patients with, and without, psychotic relapse. There were also no differences in baseline psychopathology, including scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Global Assessment of Function.
Dr. Küster noted that there were no overall differences between patients with and without psychotic relapse in terms of their plasma copeptin or cortisol levels at baseline.
“The only difference we saw was in diagnosis,” she reported. Patients with psychotic relapse were significantly more likely to have comorbid drug abuse – 43% in patients who relapsed versus 15% of those who did not (P = .02).
However, when the investigators calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for copeptin levels, they found there was a significant difference in relapse rates in those with copeptin levels >6 pmol/L vs. those with lower levels (hazard ratio, 2.3; P = .039).
When the focus was on only patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, the results were even more pronounced. The HR for psychotic relapse in patients with higher vs. lower copeptin levels was 3.2 (P = .028).
“We also looked for other possible predicting factors,” Dr. Küster said. This included sex, age, duration of disease, reason for hospitalization, psychopathology, medication, comorbidities, and cortisol levels. “But none of these factors was associated with psychotic relapse,” she added.
The only factor positively associated with relapse was drug abuse, primarily via marijuana. However, the association with copeptin remained significant even after taking this factor into account.
In future studies, the researchers plan to examine whether copeptin levels could identify which patients at ultra-high risk will transition to first-episode psychosis, as well as to predict development of posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Küster said.
A proxy for ‘something simpler’?
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Leah H. Rubin, PhD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting” – and noted that her own research has included measuring vasopressin in patients with untreated first-episode psychosis.
Dr. Rubin’s findings showed that levels of the hormone were associated with psychosis severity, and thus she is “not surprised that they found a marker” that may be promising in psychosis relapse prediction.
However, she took issue with the notion that vasopressin is an unreliable marker, pointing out that the work of her team demonstrates that it can be measured. Dr. Rubin added that she found it to be “pretty stable.”
In addition, because the current study had a small sample size, Dr. Rubin said she would be interested to see whether the findings can be replicated on a larger scale.
She also noted that more than two-thirds of the study population were men. “Vasopressin and oxytocin are sexually dimorphic neuropeptides,” she explained, “so I think it becomes important to ensure ... whether it’s the same for men and women.”
“Just from a psychosocial perspective, what’s going on in those folks’ lives?” Dr. Rubin asked. “Is it truly copeptin” or is it high stress levels that facilitate a relapse? Copeptin levels, she added, may be “a proxy for something simpler.”
The study authors and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Copeptin, a small peptide secreted with the hormone vasopressin, appears to be one of the first promising biomarkers for predicting psychosis relapse, results of an observational study suggest.
An analysis of plasma copeptin levels in patients with schizophrenia showed those with high plasma levels of the peptide were about three times more likely to experience psychotic relapse, compared with their counterparts with lower levels.
The results suggest, “copeptin could be a promising biomarker in predicting psychotic relapse in schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” said study investigator Jennifer Küster, MD, University Psychiatric Clinics Basel (Switzerland). Measuring copeptin levels upon hospital admission “could help to intensify” the care of at-risk patients, she added.
The findings were presented at the virtual Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society 2021.
Relapse prevention important
Two-thirds of patients with schizophrenia experience at least one relapse of a psychotic episode, which in turn increases the risk of the disorder having a chronic course, Dr. Küster noted.
In addition, a psychotic relapse is associated with deterioration of function and cognition and reduced treatment response, “so relapse prevention is important,” she said.
Previous research has explored various methods of predicting schizophrenia outcomes. These include measuring inflammatory markers, catecholamines, oxytocin, and cortisol in combination with imaging markers, “but so far no reliable biomarker has been found,” Dr. Küster said.
She noted that psychotic relapse is associated with increased psychological stress – and vasopressin, which is secreted by the pituitary gland, is a known marker of stress. It is involved in sodium homeostasis and higher brain function and is also elevated in acute psychosis.
However, vasopressin “is challenging to measure because assays are complicated and unreliable,” Dr. Küster said.
As a result, the researchers turned their attention to copeptin, a more stable, more reliable surrogate marker for vasopressin. Copeptin has been shown previously to be a predictor of outcomes in somatic diseases and is also increased during psychological distress.
To measure the utility of copeptin in predicting psychotic relapse,
Baseline characteristics were collected and fasting serum copeptin levels were measured. Disease severity was measured using a range of validated assessment scales.
Predictive factor
Among 69 patients available for analysis, 30 experienced psychotic relapse at 1-year follow-up. Relapse was defined as rehospitalization because of an acute psychotic episode.
There were no differences in baseline demographic characteristics between patients with, and without, psychotic relapse. There were also no differences in baseline psychopathology, including scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Global Assessment of Function.
Dr. Küster noted that there were no overall differences between patients with and without psychotic relapse in terms of their plasma copeptin or cortisol levels at baseline.
“The only difference we saw was in diagnosis,” she reported. Patients with psychotic relapse were significantly more likely to have comorbid drug abuse – 43% in patients who relapsed versus 15% of those who did not (P = .02).
However, when the investigators calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for copeptin levels, they found there was a significant difference in relapse rates in those with copeptin levels >6 pmol/L vs. those with lower levels (hazard ratio, 2.3; P = .039).
When the focus was on only patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, the results were even more pronounced. The HR for psychotic relapse in patients with higher vs. lower copeptin levels was 3.2 (P = .028).
“We also looked for other possible predicting factors,” Dr. Küster said. This included sex, age, duration of disease, reason for hospitalization, psychopathology, medication, comorbidities, and cortisol levels. “But none of these factors was associated with psychotic relapse,” she added.
The only factor positively associated with relapse was drug abuse, primarily via marijuana. However, the association with copeptin remained significant even after taking this factor into account.
In future studies, the researchers plan to examine whether copeptin levels could identify which patients at ultra-high risk will transition to first-episode psychosis, as well as to predict development of posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Küster said.
A proxy for ‘something simpler’?
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Leah H. Rubin, PhD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting” – and noted that her own research has included measuring vasopressin in patients with untreated first-episode psychosis.
Dr. Rubin’s findings showed that levels of the hormone were associated with psychosis severity, and thus she is “not surprised that they found a marker” that may be promising in psychosis relapse prediction.
However, she took issue with the notion that vasopressin is an unreliable marker, pointing out that the work of her team demonstrates that it can be measured. Dr. Rubin added that she found it to be “pretty stable.”
In addition, because the current study had a small sample size, Dr. Rubin said she would be interested to see whether the findings can be replicated on a larger scale.
She also noted that more than two-thirds of the study population were men. “Vasopressin and oxytocin are sexually dimorphic neuropeptides,” she explained, “so I think it becomes important to ensure ... whether it’s the same for men and women.”
“Just from a psychosocial perspective, what’s going on in those folks’ lives?” Dr. Rubin asked. “Is it truly copeptin” or is it high stress levels that facilitate a relapse? Copeptin levels, she added, may be “a proxy for something simpler.”
The study authors and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Copeptin, a small peptide secreted with the hormone vasopressin, appears to be one of the first promising biomarkers for predicting psychosis relapse, results of an observational study suggest.
An analysis of plasma copeptin levels in patients with schizophrenia showed those with high plasma levels of the peptide were about three times more likely to experience psychotic relapse, compared with their counterparts with lower levels.
The results suggest, “copeptin could be a promising biomarker in predicting psychotic relapse in schizophrenia spectrum disorder,” said study investigator Jennifer Küster, MD, University Psychiatric Clinics Basel (Switzerland). Measuring copeptin levels upon hospital admission “could help to intensify” the care of at-risk patients, she added.
The findings were presented at the virtual Congress of the Schizophrenia International Research Society 2021.
Relapse prevention important
Two-thirds of patients with schizophrenia experience at least one relapse of a psychotic episode, which in turn increases the risk of the disorder having a chronic course, Dr. Küster noted.
In addition, a psychotic relapse is associated with deterioration of function and cognition and reduced treatment response, “so relapse prevention is important,” she said.
Previous research has explored various methods of predicting schizophrenia outcomes. These include measuring inflammatory markers, catecholamines, oxytocin, and cortisol in combination with imaging markers, “but so far no reliable biomarker has been found,” Dr. Küster said.
She noted that psychotic relapse is associated with increased psychological stress – and vasopressin, which is secreted by the pituitary gland, is a known marker of stress. It is involved in sodium homeostasis and higher brain function and is also elevated in acute psychosis.
However, vasopressin “is challenging to measure because assays are complicated and unreliable,” Dr. Küster said.
As a result, the researchers turned their attention to copeptin, a more stable, more reliable surrogate marker for vasopressin. Copeptin has been shown previously to be a predictor of outcomes in somatic diseases and is also increased during psychological distress.
To measure the utility of copeptin in predicting psychotic relapse,
Baseline characteristics were collected and fasting serum copeptin levels were measured. Disease severity was measured using a range of validated assessment scales.
Predictive factor
Among 69 patients available for analysis, 30 experienced psychotic relapse at 1-year follow-up. Relapse was defined as rehospitalization because of an acute psychotic episode.
There were no differences in baseline demographic characteristics between patients with, and without, psychotic relapse. There were also no differences in baseline psychopathology, including scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Global Assessment of Function.
Dr. Küster noted that there were no overall differences between patients with and without psychotic relapse in terms of their plasma copeptin or cortisol levels at baseline.
“The only difference we saw was in diagnosis,” she reported. Patients with psychotic relapse were significantly more likely to have comorbid drug abuse – 43% in patients who relapsed versus 15% of those who did not (P = .02).
However, when the investigators calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for copeptin levels, they found there was a significant difference in relapse rates in those with copeptin levels >6 pmol/L vs. those with lower levels (hazard ratio, 2.3; P = .039).
When the focus was on only patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorder, the results were even more pronounced. The HR for psychotic relapse in patients with higher vs. lower copeptin levels was 3.2 (P = .028).
“We also looked for other possible predicting factors,” Dr. Küster said. This included sex, age, duration of disease, reason for hospitalization, psychopathology, medication, comorbidities, and cortisol levels. “But none of these factors was associated with psychotic relapse,” she added.
The only factor positively associated with relapse was drug abuse, primarily via marijuana. However, the association with copeptin remained significant even after taking this factor into account.
In future studies, the researchers plan to examine whether copeptin levels could identify which patients at ultra-high risk will transition to first-episode psychosis, as well as to predict development of posttraumatic stress disorder, Dr. Küster said.
A proxy for ‘something simpler’?
Commenting on the findings for this news organization, Leah H. Rubin, PhD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, described the study as “interesting” – and noted that her own research has included measuring vasopressin in patients with untreated first-episode psychosis.
Dr. Rubin’s findings showed that levels of the hormone were associated with psychosis severity, and thus she is “not surprised that they found a marker” that may be promising in psychosis relapse prediction.
However, she took issue with the notion that vasopressin is an unreliable marker, pointing out that the work of her team demonstrates that it can be measured. Dr. Rubin added that she found it to be “pretty stable.”
In addition, because the current study had a small sample size, Dr. Rubin said she would be interested to see whether the findings can be replicated on a larger scale.
She also noted that more than two-thirds of the study population were men. “Vasopressin and oxytocin are sexually dimorphic neuropeptides,” she explained, “so I think it becomes important to ensure ... whether it’s the same for men and women.”
“Just from a psychosocial perspective, what’s going on in those folks’ lives?” Dr. Rubin asked. “Is it truly copeptin” or is it high stress levels that facilitate a relapse? Copeptin levels, she added, may be “a proxy for something simpler.”
The study authors and Dr. Rubin have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.