Anxiety Disorders

A newly discovered vascular brain barrier that blocks the passage of inflammatory molecules triggered by gut bacteria may be why patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk for certain mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression, early research suggests.

The discovery, which was based on a preclinical model, could lead to new therapeutic targets that could have applications for both gastrointestinal and psychiatric conditions, investigators note.

The research team, which was led by immunologist Maria Rescigno, PhD, and neuroscientist Simona Lodato, PhD, both from Humanitas University, Milan, notes that the barrier resides in the choroid plexus, a region of the brain that is involved in filtering cerebrospinal fluid. The researchers found that the region closes in response to inflammatory molecules produced in reaction to the presence of intestinal bacteria in patients with gut disorders.

Dr. Lodato said in an interview that the brain’s choroid plexus vascular barrier, along with another barrier between the gut and liver, known as the gut vascular barrier, appear to control the movement of molecules along the gut-brain axis.

“We show that in addition to the epithelial barrier in the choroid plexus, there is a functional vascular barrier that only becomes evident in blocking entry of various inflammatory molecules under conditions of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Lodato said.

“This interruption of the gut-brain interaction has developed to protect the brain from inflammation. Why this happens is not yet known, but it is likely to prevent epileptic seizures and imbalanced neuronal activity,” added Dr. Rescigno.

The study was published online October 22 in Science.
 

The gut a root cause of mental illness?

Nearly 40% of patients with IBD also experience depression and anxiety. It was once thought that these conditions arose because of patients’ difficulties in coping with their disease, said Dr. Rescigno.

“People with these disorders conventionally thought to be caused by an imbalance in the brain may actually find the root cause is located in the intestine. This is the first time these symptoms have been associated with the choroid plexus vascular brain barrier and its closure,” she noted.

Dr. Rescigno added that subtle, rather than overt, inflammation may be all that’s required for closure of the choroid plexus and the subsequent effects on mental health.

In 2015, Dr. Rescigno’s group first described the gut vascular barrier that protects the systemic circulation from gut bacteria or associated bacteria-derived molecules. During intestinal inflammation, such as occurs in IBD, this barrier is compromised and becomes more permeable. This allows microbes to pass across the epithelium of the gut barrier and enter the systemic circulation, including the liver and spleen, explained Dr. Rescigno.

Dr. Rescigno and Dr. Lodato then explored whether this systemic inflammatory condition was connected to the brain along a gut-brain axis and found that it was.

The researchers tested the hypothesis that central nervous system symptoms may be due to vascular changes at the interface between the gut or the brain and elsewhere in the body.

“We set out to test whether opening of the gut vascular barrier would allow gut bacteria to trigger the release of inflammatory molecules that spread to more distant areas, possibly leading to a deficiency of certain nutrients and precipitating mental disorders,” they said.

An experimental preclinical model of the choroid plexus vascular barrier closure led to anxiety-like behavior, as well as short-term memory loss. That this behavior occurred independently of inflammation suggested that it was likely a response to closure itself, they note.

In the noninflammatory state, the epithelium of the choroid plexus filters molecules. Those that are ≤70 kDa are allowed to pass through to the brain. However, the investigators found that during systemic inflammation, this filtration stops, and the blood capillaries of the choroid plexus prevent entry of inflammatory molecules such as cytokines.

Dr. Lodato speculated that when the vascular barrier of the choroid plexus shuts off during the systemic inflammatory state, it responds by bathing the brain in cerebrospinal fluid.

“When the choroid plexus closes, like a door slamming shut, then communication between the brain and the rest of the body is halted. This means that the brain is deprived of certain nutrients and other beneficial molecules that usually enter via the cerebrospinal fluid or enriched of potentially dangerous ones, as drainage could also be affected,” she said.

If confirmed in further studies, these results may open the way to new interventions.
 

‘A significant leap forward’

Commenting on the findings, David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, noted that the study’s results represent “a significant leap forward” and that it highlights “another important cost to uncontrolled gut inflammation that is the potential for worsened mental health disorders.”

Dr. Rubin, whose research involves measuring metabolites of the dietary amino acid tryptophan, including melatonin and serotonin, in patients with IBD, added that the findings offer a possible explanation for the association of both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis with anxiety and depressive disorders.

“There was a belief that the association was in the opposite direction, that the mental health disorder was causing or worsening the gut inflammation, but this has been disavowed,” Dr. Rubin said.

“Most recently, the recognition that the major sources of serotonin and other metabolites of tryptophan that come from the gut microbiome has led to the hypothesis that the inflamed bowel and dysbiotic gut biome may in fact be driving the mental health disorders due to the effect of neurotransmitter imbalance,” he added. Dr. Rubin also suggested that the shutdown of the choroid plexus vascular barrier may contribute to this imbalance but that this needs additional study.

“This further supports my ongoing contention that the gut really is the center of the universe,” said Dr. Rubin.

Also commenting on the findings, Miguel Rigueiro, MD, professor in the department of medicine in the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said, “There’s an implication that anxiety and depression and other behavioral health disorders may be explained by this mechanism. If that is the case, there may be a way to target medications against the choroid plexus and potentially treat depression or anxiety.”

This prospect was echoed by Dr. Rubin, who said, “The clinical implication is that treatment of gut inflammation may restore a balance to the neurotransmitters and resolve anxiety or depressive disorders.”

To identify new therapeutic targets, investigators will study the regions and circuits of the brain that are more susceptible to this closure of the choroid plexus, said Dr. Lodato.

“If these regions are associated with depression or other psychosocial disorders, then this new understanding around the choroid plexus vascular barrier might eventually have implications for helping treat such disorders,” she noted.

Reflecting a general shift from a brain-centric view of some psychosocial disorders to an intestinal-centric one, Dr. Lodato added, “The brain cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of a much larger body, and we need to think this way.”

Dr. Rescigno, Dr. Lodato, and Dr. Rubin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rigueiro has served on advisory boards and as consultant for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, SpA, and Bristol-Meyer Squibb.

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

A newly discovered vascular brain barrier that blocks the passage of inflammatory molecules triggered by gut bacteria may be why patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk for certain mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression, early research suggests.

The discovery, which was based on a preclinical model, could lead to new therapeutic targets that could have applications for both gastrointestinal and psychiatric conditions, investigators note.

The research team, which was led by immunologist Maria Rescigno, PhD, and neuroscientist Simona Lodato, PhD, both from Humanitas University, Milan, notes that the barrier resides in the choroid plexus, a region of the brain that is involved in filtering cerebrospinal fluid. The researchers found that the region closes in response to inflammatory molecules produced in reaction to the presence of intestinal bacteria in patients with gut disorders.

Dr. Lodato said in an interview that the brain’s choroid plexus vascular barrier, along with another barrier between the gut and liver, known as the gut vascular barrier, appear to control the movement of molecules along the gut-brain axis.

“We show that in addition to the epithelial barrier in the choroid plexus, there is a functional vascular barrier that only becomes evident in blocking entry of various inflammatory molecules under conditions of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Lodato said.

“This interruption of the gut-brain interaction has developed to protect the brain from inflammation. Why this happens is not yet known, but it is likely to prevent epileptic seizures and imbalanced neuronal activity,” added Dr. Rescigno.

The study was published online October 22 in Science.
 

The gut a root cause of mental illness?

Nearly 40% of patients with IBD also experience depression and anxiety. It was once thought that these conditions arose because of patients’ difficulties in coping with their disease, said Dr. Rescigno.

“People with these disorders conventionally thought to be caused by an imbalance in the brain may actually find the root cause is located in the intestine. This is the first time these symptoms have been associated with the choroid plexus vascular brain barrier and its closure,” she noted.

Dr. Rescigno added that subtle, rather than overt, inflammation may be all that’s required for closure of the choroid plexus and the subsequent effects on mental health.

In 2015, Dr. Rescigno’s group first described the gut vascular barrier that protects the systemic circulation from gut bacteria or associated bacteria-derived molecules. During intestinal inflammation, such as occurs in IBD, this barrier is compromised and becomes more permeable. This allows microbes to pass across the epithelium of the gut barrier and enter the systemic circulation, including the liver and spleen, explained Dr. Rescigno.

Dr. Rescigno and Dr. Lodato then explored whether this systemic inflammatory condition was connected to the brain along a gut-brain axis and found that it was.

The researchers tested the hypothesis that central nervous system symptoms may be due to vascular changes at the interface between the gut or the brain and elsewhere in the body.

“We set out to test whether opening of the gut vascular barrier would allow gut bacteria to trigger the release of inflammatory molecules that spread to more distant areas, possibly leading to a deficiency of certain nutrients and precipitating mental disorders,” they said.

An experimental preclinical model of the choroid plexus vascular barrier closure led to anxiety-like behavior, as well as short-term memory loss. That this behavior occurred independently of inflammation suggested that it was likely a response to closure itself, they note.

In the noninflammatory state, the epithelium of the choroid plexus filters molecules. Those that are ≤70 kDa are allowed to pass through to the brain. However, the investigators found that during systemic inflammation, this filtration stops, and the blood capillaries of the choroid plexus prevent entry of inflammatory molecules such as cytokines.

Dr. Lodato speculated that when the vascular barrier of the choroid plexus shuts off during the systemic inflammatory state, it responds by bathing the brain in cerebrospinal fluid.

“When the choroid plexus closes, like a door slamming shut, then communication between the brain and the rest of the body is halted. This means that the brain is deprived of certain nutrients and other beneficial molecules that usually enter via the cerebrospinal fluid or enriched of potentially dangerous ones, as drainage could also be affected,” she said.

If confirmed in further studies, these results may open the way to new interventions.
 

‘A significant leap forward’

Commenting on the findings, David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, noted that the study’s results represent “a significant leap forward” and that it highlights “another important cost to uncontrolled gut inflammation that is the potential for worsened mental health disorders.”

Dr. Rubin, whose research involves measuring metabolites of the dietary amino acid tryptophan, including melatonin and serotonin, in patients with IBD, added that the findings offer a possible explanation for the association of both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis with anxiety and depressive disorders.

“There was a belief that the association was in the opposite direction, that the mental health disorder was causing or worsening the gut inflammation, but this has been disavowed,” Dr. Rubin said.

“Most recently, the recognition that the major sources of serotonin and other metabolites of tryptophan that come from the gut microbiome has led to the hypothesis that the inflamed bowel and dysbiotic gut biome may in fact be driving the mental health disorders due to the effect of neurotransmitter imbalance,” he added. Dr. Rubin also suggested that the shutdown of the choroid plexus vascular barrier may contribute to this imbalance but that this needs additional study.

“This further supports my ongoing contention that the gut really is the center of the universe,” said Dr. Rubin.

Also commenting on the findings, Miguel Rigueiro, MD, professor in the department of medicine in the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said, “There’s an implication that anxiety and depression and other behavioral health disorders may be explained by this mechanism. If that is the case, there may be a way to target medications against the choroid plexus and potentially treat depression or anxiety.”

This prospect was echoed by Dr. Rubin, who said, “The clinical implication is that treatment of gut inflammation may restore a balance to the neurotransmitters and resolve anxiety or depressive disorders.”

To identify new therapeutic targets, investigators will study the regions and circuits of the brain that are more susceptible to this closure of the choroid plexus, said Dr. Lodato.

“If these regions are associated with depression or other psychosocial disorders, then this new understanding around the choroid plexus vascular barrier might eventually have implications for helping treat such disorders,” she noted.

Reflecting a general shift from a brain-centric view of some psychosocial disorders to an intestinal-centric one, Dr. Lodato added, “The brain cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of a much larger body, and we need to think this way.”

Dr. Rescigno, Dr. Lodato, and Dr. Rubin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rigueiro has served on advisory boards and as consultant for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, SpA, and Bristol-Meyer Squibb.

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

A newly discovered vascular brain barrier that blocks the passage of inflammatory molecules triggered by gut bacteria may be why patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at increased risk for certain mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression, early research suggests.

The discovery, which was based on a preclinical model, could lead to new therapeutic targets that could have applications for both gastrointestinal and psychiatric conditions, investigators note.

The research team, which was led by immunologist Maria Rescigno, PhD, and neuroscientist Simona Lodato, PhD, both from Humanitas University, Milan, notes that the barrier resides in the choroid plexus, a region of the brain that is involved in filtering cerebrospinal fluid. The researchers found that the region closes in response to inflammatory molecules produced in reaction to the presence of intestinal bacteria in patients with gut disorders.

Dr. Lodato said in an interview that the brain’s choroid plexus vascular barrier, along with another barrier between the gut and liver, known as the gut vascular barrier, appear to control the movement of molecules along the gut-brain axis.

“We show that in addition to the epithelial barrier in the choroid plexus, there is a functional vascular barrier that only becomes evident in blocking entry of various inflammatory molecules under conditions of systemic inflammation,” Dr. Lodato said.

“This interruption of the gut-brain interaction has developed to protect the brain from inflammation. Why this happens is not yet known, but it is likely to prevent epileptic seizures and imbalanced neuronal activity,” added Dr. Rescigno.

The study was published online October 22 in Science.
 

The gut a root cause of mental illness?

Nearly 40% of patients with IBD also experience depression and anxiety. It was once thought that these conditions arose because of patients’ difficulties in coping with their disease, said Dr. Rescigno.

“People with these disorders conventionally thought to be caused by an imbalance in the brain may actually find the root cause is located in the intestine. This is the first time these symptoms have been associated with the choroid plexus vascular brain barrier and its closure,” she noted.

Dr. Rescigno added that subtle, rather than overt, inflammation may be all that’s required for closure of the choroid plexus and the subsequent effects on mental health.

In 2015, Dr. Rescigno’s group first described the gut vascular barrier that protects the systemic circulation from gut bacteria or associated bacteria-derived molecules. During intestinal inflammation, such as occurs in IBD, this barrier is compromised and becomes more permeable. This allows microbes to pass across the epithelium of the gut barrier and enter the systemic circulation, including the liver and spleen, explained Dr. Rescigno.

Dr. Rescigno and Dr. Lodato then explored whether this systemic inflammatory condition was connected to the brain along a gut-brain axis and found that it was.

The researchers tested the hypothesis that central nervous system symptoms may be due to vascular changes at the interface between the gut or the brain and elsewhere in the body.

“We set out to test whether opening of the gut vascular barrier would allow gut bacteria to trigger the release of inflammatory molecules that spread to more distant areas, possibly leading to a deficiency of certain nutrients and precipitating mental disorders,” they said.

An experimental preclinical model of the choroid plexus vascular barrier closure led to anxiety-like behavior, as well as short-term memory loss. That this behavior occurred independently of inflammation suggested that it was likely a response to closure itself, they note.

In the noninflammatory state, the epithelium of the choroid plexus filters molecules. Those that are ≤70 kDa are allowed to pass through to the brain. However, the investigators found that during systemic inflammation, this filtration stops, and the blood capillaries of the choroid plexus prevent entry of inflammatory molecules such as cytokines.

Dr. Lodato speculated that when the vascular barrier of the choroid plexus shuts off during the systemic inflammatory state, it responds by bathing the brain in cerebrospinal fluid.

“When the choroid plexus closes, like a door slamming shut, then communication between the brain and the rest of the body is halted. This means that the brain is deprived of certain nutrients and other beneficial molecules that usually enter via the cerebrospinal fluid or enriched of potentially dangerous ones, as drainage could also be affected,” she said.

If confirmed in further studies, these results may open the way to new interventions.
 

‘A significant leap forward’

Commenting on the findings, David T. Rubin, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Chicago, noted that the study’s results represent “a significant leap forward” and that it highlights “another important cost to uncontrolled gut inflammation that is the potential for worsened mental health disorders.”

Dr. Rubin, whose research involves measuring metabolites of the dietary amino acid tryptophan, including melatonin and serotonin, in patients with IBD, added that the findings offer a possible explanation for the association of both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis with anxiety and depressive disorders.

“There was a belief that the association was in the opposite direction, that the mental health disorder was causing or worsening the gut inflammation, but this has been disavowed,” Dr. Rubin said.

“Most recently, the recognition that the major sources of serotonin and other metabolites of tryptophan that come from the gut microbiome has led to the hypothesis that the inflamed bowel and dysbiotic gut biome may in fact be driving the mental health disorders due to the effect of neurotransmitter imbalance,” he added. Dr. Rubin also suggested that the shutdown of the choroid plexus vascular barrier may contribute to this imbalance but that this needs additional study.

“This further supports my ongoing contention that the gut really is the center of the universe,” said Dr. Rubin.

Also commenting on the findings, Miguel Rigueiro, MD, professor in the department of medicine in the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, said, “There’s an implication that anxiety and depression and other behavioral health disorders may be explained by this mechanism. If that is the case, there may be a way to target medications against the choroid plexus and potentially treat depression or anxiety.”

This prospect was echoed by Dr. Rubin, who said, “The clinical implication is that treatment of gut inflammation may restore a balance to the neurotransmitters and resolve anxiety or depressive disorders.”

To identify new therapeutic targets, investigators will study the regions and circuits of the brain that are more susceptible to this closure of the choroid plexus, said Dr. Lodato.

“If these regions are associated with depression or other psychosocial disorders, then this new understanding around the choroid plexus vascular barrier might eventually have implications for helping treat such disorders,” she noted.

Reflecting a general shift from a brain-centric view of some psychosocial disorders to an intestinal-centric one, Dr. Lodato added, “The brain cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of a much larger body, and we need to think this way.”

Dr. Rescigno, Dr. Lodato, and Dr. Rubin report no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Rigueiro has served on advisory boards and as consultant for AbbVie, Janssen, UCB, Takeda, Pfizer, Miraca Labs, Amgen, Celgene, Seres, Allergan, Genentech, Gilead, Salix, Prometheus, Lilly, TARGET Pharma Solutions, ALFASIGMA, SpA, and Bristol-Meyer Squibb.

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

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

Increased mental health needs, higher acuity from delayed appointments, and added questions and conversations surrounding COVID-19 are forcing primary care offices to rethink priorities in office visits.

Evidence of this came from the latest Primary Care Collaborative (PCC) survey, which found that primary care clinicians are seeing more complex patients requiring longer appointments in the wake of COVID-19.

The PCC with the Larry A. Green Center regularly surveys primary care clinicians. This round of questions came August 14-17 and included 1,263 respondents from 49 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories.

More than 7 in 10 (71%) respondents said their patients are more complex and nearly the same percentage said appointments are taking more time.

Ann Greiner, president and CEO of the PCC, said in an interview that 55% of respondents reported that clinicians are struggling to keep up with pent-up demand after patients have delayed or canceled care. Sixty-five percent in the survey said they had seen a rise in children’s mental health issues, and 58% said they were unsure how to help their patients with long COVID.

In addition, primary care clinicians are having repeated conversations with patients on why they should get a vaccine and which one.

“I think that’s adding to the complexity. There is a lot going on here with patient trust,” Ms. Greiner said.
 

‘We’re going to be playing catch-up’

Jacqueline Fincher, MD, an internist in Thompson, Ga., said in an interview that appointments have gotten longer and more complex in the wake of the pandemic – “no question.”

The immediate past president of the American College of Physicians is seeing patients with chronic disease that has gone untreated for sometimes a year or more, she said.

“Their blood pressure was not under good control, they were under more stress, their sugars were up and weren’t being followed as closely for conditions such as congestive heart failure,” she said.

Dr. Fincher, who works in a rural practice 40 miles from Augusta, Ga., with her physician husband and two other physicians, said patients are ready to come back in, “but I don’t have enough slots for them.”

She said she prioritizes what to help patients with first and schedules the next tier for the next appointment, but added, “honestly, over the next 2 years we’re going to be playing catch-up.”

At the same time, the CDC has estimated that 45% of U.S. adults are at increased risk for complications from COVID-19 because of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, respiratory disease, hypertension, or cancer. Rates ranged from 19.8% for people 18-29 years old to 80.7% for people over 80 years of age.
 

Long COVID could overwhelm existing health care capacity

Primary care physicians are also having to diagnose sometimes “invisible” symptoms after people have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. Diagnosing takes intent listening to patients who describe symptoms that tests can’t confirm.

As this news organization has previously reported, half of COVID-19 survivors report postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) lasting longer than 6 months.

“These long-term PASC effects occur on a scale that could overwhelm existing health care capacity, particularly in low- and middle-income countries,” the authors wrote.
 

Anxiety, depression ‘have gone off the charts’

Danielle Loeb, MD, MPH, associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Colorado in Denver, who studies complexity in primary care, said in the wake of COVID-19, more patients have developed “new, serious anxiety.”

Courtesy Dr. Danielle Loeb

“That got extremely exacerbated during the pandemic. Anxiety and depression have gone off the charts,” said Dr. Loeb, who prefers the pronoun “they.”

Dr. Loeb cares for a large number of transgender patients. As offices reopen, some patients are having trouble reintegrating into the workplace and resuming social contacts. The primary care doctor says appointments can get longer because of the need to complete tasks, such as filling out forms for Family Medical Leave Act for those not yet ready to return to work.

COVID-19–related fears are keeping many patients from coming into the office, Dr. Loeb said, either from fear of exposure or because they have mental health issues that keep them from feeling safe leaving the house.

“That really affects my ability to care for them,” they said.

Loss of employment in the pandemic or fear of job loss and subsequent changing of insurance has complicated primary care in terms of treatment and administrative tasks, according to Dr. Loeb.

To help treat patients with acute mental health issues and manage other patients, Dr. Loeb’s practice has brought in a social worker and a therapist.

Team-based care is key in the survival of primary care practices, though providing that is difficult in the smaller clinics because of the critical mass of patients needed to make it viable, they said.

“It’s the only answer. It’s the only way you don’t drown,” Dr. Loeb added. “I’m not drowning, and I credit that to my clinic having the help to support the mental health piece of things.”
 

Rethinking workflow

Tricia McGinnis, MPP, MPH, executive vice president of the nonprofit Center for Health Care Strategies (CHCS) says complexity has forced rethinking workflow.

“A lot of the trends we’re seeing in primary care were there pre-COVID, but COVID has exacerbated those trends,” she said in an interview.

“The good news ... is that it was already becoming clear that primary care needed to provide basic mental health services and integrate with behavioral health. It had also become clear that effective primary care needed to address social issues that keep patients from accessing health care,” she said.

Expanding care teams, as Dr. Loeb mentioned, is a key strategy, according to Ms. McGinnis. Potential teams would include the clinical staff, but also social workers and community health workers – people who come from the community primary care is serving who can help build trust with patients and connect the patient to the primary care team.

“There’s a lot that needs to happen that the clinician doesn’t need to do,” she said.

Telehealth can be a big factor in coordinating the team, Ms. McGinnis added.

“It’s thinking less about who’s doing the work, but more about the work that needs to be done to keep people healthy. Then let’s think about the type of workers best suited to perform those tasks,” she said.

As for reimbursing more complex care, population-based, up-front capitated payments linked to high-quality care and better outcomes will need to replace fee-for-service models, according to Ms. McGinnis.

That will provide reliable incomes for primary care offices, but also flexibility in how each patient with different levels of complexity is managed, she said.

Ms. Greiner, Dr. Fincher, Dr. Loeb, and Ms. McGinnis have no relevant financial relationships.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Many years ago, drug development in psychiatry turned to control of specific symptoms across disorders rather than within disorders, but regulatory agencies are still not yet on board, according to an expert psychopharmacologist outlining the ongoing evolution at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists, sponsored by Medscape Live.

If this reorientation is going to lead to the broad indications the newer drugs likely deserve, which is control of specific types of symptoms regardless of the diagnosis, “we have to move the [Food and Drug Administration] along,” said Stephen M. Stahl, MD, PhD, chairman of the Neuroscience Institute and an adjunct professor of psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego.

On the side of drug development and clinical practice, the reorientation has already taken place. Dr. Stahl described numerous brain circuits known to produce symptoms when function is altered that are now treatment targets. This includes the ventral medial prefrontal cortex where deficient information processing leads to depression and the orbital frontal cortex where altered function leads to impulsivity.

“It is not like each part of the brain does a little bit of everything. Rather, each part of the brain has an assignment and duty and function,” Dr. Stahl explained. By addressing the disturbed signaling in brain circuits that lead to depression, impulsivity, agitation, or other symptoms, there is an opportunity for control, regardless of the psychiatric diagnosis with which the symptom is associated.

For example, Dr. Stahl predicted that pimavanserin, a highly selective 5-HT_2A inverse agonist that is already approved for psychosis in Parkinson’s disease, is now likely to be approved for psychosis associated with other conditions on the basis of recent positive clinical studies in these other disorders.

Brexpiprazole, a serotonin-dopamine activity modulator already known to be useful for control of the agitation characteristic of schizophrenia, is now showing the same type of activity against agitation when it is associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Again, Dr. Stahl thinks this drug is on course for an indication across diseases once studies are conducted in each disease individually.

Another drug being evaluated for agitation, the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist dextromethorphan bupropion, is also being tested for treatment of symptoms across multiple disorders, he reported.

However, the FDA has so far taken the position that each drug must be tested separately for a given symptom in each disorder for which it is being considered despite the underlying premise that it is the symptom, not the disease, that is important.

“Psychiatric disorders are syndromes, categorized by a collection of symptoms defined descriptively but not neurobiologically,” Dr. Stahl said. Unlike physiological diseases where symptoms, like a fever or abdominal cramps, are the product of a disease, psychiatric symptoms are the disease and a fundamental target – regardless of the DSM-based diagnosis.

To some degree, the symptoms of psychiatric disorders have always been the focus of treatment, but a pivot toward developing therapies that will control a symptom regardless of the underlying diagnosis is an important conceptual change. It is being made possible by advances in the detail with which the neuropathology of these symptoms is understood .

“By my count, 79 symptoms are described in DSM-5, but they are spread across hundreds of syndromes because they are grouped together in different ways,” Dr. Stahl observed.

He noted that clinicians make a diagnosis on the basis symptom groupings, but their interventions are selected to address the manifestations of the disease, not the disease itself.

“If you are a real psychopharmacologist treating real patients, you are treating the specific symptoms of the specific patient,” according to Dr. Stahl.

So far, the FDA has not made this leap, insisting on trials in these categorical disorders rather than permitting trial designs that allow benefit to be demonstrated against a symptom regardless of the syndrome with which it is associated.

Of egregious examples, Dr. Stahl recounted a recent trial of a 5-HT₂ antagonist that looked so promising against psychosis in Alzheimer’s disease that the trialists enrolled patients with psychosis regardless of type of dementia, such as vascular dementia and Lewy body disease. The efficacy was impressive.

“It worked so well that they stopped the trial, but the FDA declined to approve it,” Dr. Stahl recounted. Despite clear evidence of benefit, the regulators insisted that the investigators needed to show a significant benefit in each condition individually.

While the trial investigators acknowledged that there was not enough power in the trial to show a statistically significant benefit in each category, they argued that the overall benefit and the consistent response across categories required them to stop the trial for ethical reasons.

“That’s your problem, the FDA said to the investigators,” according to Dr. Stahl.

The failure of the FDA to recognize the efficacy of psychopharmacologic therapies across symptoms regardless of the associated disease is a failure to stay current with an important evolution in medicine, Dr. Stahl indicated.

“What we have come to understand is the neurobiology of any given symptom is likely to be the same across disorders,” he said.
 

Agency’s arbitrary decisions cited

“I completely agree with Dr. Stahl,” said Henry A. Nasrallah, MD, professor of psychiatry, neurology, and neuroscience, University of Cincinnati.

In addition to the fact that symptoms are present across multiple categories, many patients manifest multiple symptoms at one time, Dr. Nasrallah pointed out. For neurodegenerative disorders associated with psychosis, depression, anxiety, aggression, and other symptoms, it is already well known that the heterogeneous symptoms “cannot be treated with a single drug,” he said. Rather different drugs targeting each symptom individually is essential for effective management.

Dr. Nasrallah, who chaired the Psychopharmacology Update meeting, has made this point many times in the past, including in his role as the editor of Current Psychiatry. In one editorial 10 years ago, he wrote that “it makes little sense for the FDA to mandate that a drug must work for a DSM diagnosis instead of specific symptoms.”

“The FDA must update its old policy, which has led to the widespread off-label use of psychiatric drugs, an artificial concept, simply because the FDA arbitrarily decided a long time ago that new drugs must be approved for a specific DSM diagnosis,” Dr. Nasrallah said.

Dr. Stahl reported financial relationships with more than 20 pharmaceutical companies, including those that are involved in the development of drugs included in his talk. Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

"Effortless.” “Weightless.” “Limitless.” “Carefree.” In most cases, these are words one would not commonly associate with running. In fact, many people might experience an uptick in anxiety when fathoming the idea of going out for a run. Believe it or not, these words are direct quotes from runners describing the feeling of a “runner’s high”—a well-documented organic euphoria that cannot be purchased or abused. But how is the innately basic and monotonous act of running able to reliably transform something as complex as human emotion? This answer lies in the endocannabinoid system.

For decades, scientists and the public believed the runner’s high was associated with an exercise-induced increase in levels of opioid peptides called beta-endorphins. The problem with this theory is that beta-endorphin, released into the blood by the pituitary gland in response to exercise and stress, has difficulty passing through the blood-brain barrier, rendering central effects of this peripheral opioid unlikely.¹ Only recently have researchers been examining the effects of exercise as it pertains to the endocannabinoid system.² Interest in the study of this system is peaking as use of cannabis and hemp-based products reaches an all-time high.

Exploring the endocannabinoid system

Within the last 25 years, the endocannabinoid system has emerged as a highly relevant and unique neuromodulatory system. As with other neurotransmitter systems, the endocannabinoid system is comprised of the endogenous cannabinoids, their receptors, and an array of enzymes responsible for both synthesis and degradation. Endocannabinoid receptors are ubiquitous in the brain and take effect primarily in the cortex, amygdala, basal ganglia, hippocampus, hypothalamus, and cerebellum. One fascinating feature of endocannabinoids is that their precursors lie embedded within lipid membranes. Nearly on demand, endocannabinoids can be rapidly synthesized and released. This grants them almost immediate availability to get into the action at the synapse.²

One study of mice found that those who were exercised experienced improvements in anxiety behaviors and better tolerance to pain. Further, when the exercised mice were treated with endocannabinoid receptor antagonists, they remained anxious and were more sensitive to pain. Endorphin antagonists had no effect on the outcome of these tests.¹ A similar study conducted in humans found improvement in subjective anxiety scores after 45 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise. This study also showed no change with naltrexone administration vs placebo, again supporting the hypothesis that endorphins play little role in this phenomenon. Interestingly, levels of endogenous cannabinoids were elevated following exercise.³ These findings suggest a possible link between activation of the endogenous endocannabinoid system and the anxiolytic properties of exercise.

For good reason, the endocannabinoid system has attracted substantial interest as a focus for a new class of drugs to treat anxiety and stress-related disorders. It remains unknown how we can best harness its many beneficial effects in a safe and effective manner. With that said, activities such as physical exercise, mindfulness meditation, yoga, and other forms of complementary medicine are immediately available and cost-effective methods that have at least preliminary data revealing their multiple health benefits, including improvement in the symptoms of anxiety and activation of endogenous cannabinoids.^1,3-6

As we are all aware, medical training and practice is full of a variety of stresses and demands. Given these demands, finding a balance between mind, body, and spirit can seem like an impossible task. Besides the obvious physical benefits of regular exercise, running can serve to employ the stress-modifying effects of our endogenous cannabinoid system to reduce perceived anxiety and improve wellness. Indeed, at the start of any bout of exercise—especially running—the transition from rest can be startling. Rest assured that there is good news waiting beyond the first few miles. Your reward for patience and perseverance is a beautiful freedom experienced only by those who have earned it. The best part of it all? It is waiting for you right outside your door.

"Effortless.” “Weightless.” “Limitless.” “Carefree.” In most cases, these are words one would not commonly associate with running. In fact, many people might experience an uptick in anxiety when fathoming the idea of going out for a run. Believe it or not, these words are direct quotes from runners describing the feeling of a “runner’s high”—a well-documented organic euphoria that cannot be purchased or abused. But how is the innately basic and monotonous act of running able to reliably transform something as complex as human emotion? This answer lies in the endocannabinoid system.

For decades, scientists and the public believed the runner’s high was associated with an exercise-induced increase in levels of opioid peptides called beta-endorphins. The problem with this theory is that beta-endorphin, released into the blood by the pituitary gland in response to exercise and stress, has difficulty passing through the blood-brain barrier, rendering central effects of this peripheral opioid unlikely.¹ Only recently have researchers been examining the effects of exercise as it pertains to the endocannabinoid system.² Interest in the study of this system is peaking as use of cannabis and hemp-based products reaches an all-time high.

Exploring the endocannabinoid system

Within the last 25 years, the endocannabinoid system has emerged as a highly relevant and unique neuromodulatory system. As with other neurotransmitter systems, the endocannabinoid system is comprised of the endogenous cannabinoids, their receptors, and an array of enzymes responsible for both synthesis and degradation. Endocannabinoid receptors are ubiquitous in the brain and take effect primarily in the cortex, amygdala, basal ganglia, hippocampus, hypothalamus, and cerebellum. One fascinating feature of endocannabinoids is that their precursors lie embedded within lipid membranes. Nearly on demand, endocannabinoids can be rapidly synthesized and released. This grants them almost immediate availability to get into the action at the synapse.²

One study of mice found that those who were exercised experienced improvements in anxiety behaviors and better tolerance to pain. Further, when the exercised mice were treated with endocannabinoid receptor antagonists, they remained anxious and were more sensitive to pain. Endorphin antagonists had no effect on the outcome of these tests.¹ A similar study conducted in humans found improvement in subjective anxiety scores after 45 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise. This study also showed no change with naltrexone administration vs placebo, again supporting the hypothesis that endorphins play little role in this phenomenon. Interestingly, levels of endogenous cannabinoids were elevated following exercise.³ These findings suggest a possible link between activation of the endogenous endocannabinoid system and the anxiolytic properties of exercise.

For good reason, the endocannabinoid system has attracted substantial interest as a focus for a new class of drugs to treat anxiety and stress-related disorders. It remains unknown how we can best harness its many beneficial effects in a safe and effective manner. With that said, activities such as physical exercise, mindfulness meditation, yoga, and other forms of complementary medicine are immediately available and cost-effective methods that have at least preliminary data revealing their multiple health benefits, including improvement in the symptoms of anxiety and activation of endogenous cannabinoids.^1,3-6

As we are all aware, medical training and practice is full of a variety of stresses and demands. Given these demands, finding a balance between mind, body, and spirit can seem like an impossible task. Besides the obvious physical benefits of regular exercise, running can serve to employ the stress-modifying effects of our endogenous cannabinoid system to reduce perceived anxiety and improve wellness. Indeed, at the start of any bout of exercise—especially running—the transition from rest can be startling. Rest assured that there is good news waiting beyond the first few miles. Your reward for patience and perseverance is a beautiful freedom experienced only by those who have earned it. The best part of it all? It is waiting for you right outside your door.

"Effortless.” “Weightless.” “Limitless.” “Carefree.” In most cases, these are words one would not commonly associate with running. In fact, many people might experience an uptick in anxiety when fathoming the idea of going out for a run. Believe it or not, these words are direct quotes from runners describing the feeling of a “runner’s high”—a well-documented organic euphoria that cannot be purchased or abused. But how is the innately basic and monotonous act of running able to reliably transform something as complex as human emotion? This answer lies in the endocannabinoid system.

For decades, scientists and the public believed the runner’s high was associated with an exercise-induced increase in levels of opioid peptides called beta-endorphins. The problem with this theory is that beta-endorphin, released into the blood by the pituitary gland in response to exercise and stress, has difficulty passing through the blood-brain barrier, rendering central effects of this peripheral opioid unlikely.¹ Only recently have researchers been examining the effects of exercise as it pertains to the endocannabinoid system.² Interest in the study of this system is peaking as use of cannabis and hemp-based products reaches an all-time high.

Exploring the endocannabinoid system

Within the last 25 years, the endocannabinoid system has emerged as a highly relevant and unique neuromodulatory system. As with other neurotransmitter systems, the endocannabinoid system is comprised of the endogenous cannabinoids, their receptors, and an array of enzymes responsible for both synthesis and degradation. Endocannabinoid receptors are ubiquitous in the brain and take effect primarily in the cortex, amygdala, basal ganglia, hippocampus, hypothalamus, and cerebellum. One fascinating feature of endocannabinoids is that their precursors lie embedded within lipid membranes. Nearly on demand, endocannabinoids can be rapidly synthesized and released. This grants them almost immediate availability to get into the action at the synapse.²

One study of mice found that those who were exercised experienced improvements in anxiety behaviors and better tolerance to pain. Further, when the exercised mice were treated with endocannabinoid receptor antagonists, they remained anxious and were more sensitive to pain. Endorphin antagonists had no effect on the outcome of these tests.¹ A similar study conducted in humans found improvement in subjective anxiety scores after 45 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise. This study also showed no change with naltrexone administration vs placebo, again supporting the hypothesis that endorphins play little role in this phenomenon. Interestingly, levels of endogenous cannabinoids were elevated following exercise.³ These findings suggest a possible link between activation of the endogenous endocannabinoid system and the anxiolytic properties of exercise.

For good reason, the endocannabinoid system has attracted substantial interest as a focus for a new class of drugs to treat anxiety and stress-related disorders. It remains unknown how we can best harness its many beneficial effects in a safe and effective manner. With that said, activities such as physical exercise, mindfulness meditation, yoga, and other forms of complementary medicine are immediately available and cost-effective methods that have at least preliminary data revealing their multiple health benefits, including improvement in the symptoms of anxiety and activation of endogenous cannabinoids.^1,3-6

As we are all aware, medical training and practice is full of a variety of stresses and demands. Given these demands, finding a balance between mind, body, and spirit can seem like an impossible task. Besides the obvious physical benefits of regular exercise, running can serve to employ the stress-modifying effects of our endogenous cannabinoid system to reduce perceived anxiety and improve wellness. Indeed, at the start of any bout of exercise—especially running—the transition from rest can be startling. Rest assured that there is good news waiting beyond the first few miles. Your reward for patience and perseverance is a beautiful freedom experienced only by those who have earned it. The best part of it all? It is waiting for you right outside your door.

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

In this modern age of health care where telemedicine rules, conversational agents (CAs) that use text messaging systems are becoming a major mode of communication.

Many people are familiar with voice-enabled agents, such as Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Microsoft’s Cortana. However, CAs come in different forms of complexity, ranging from a short message service–based texting platform to an embodied conversational agent (ECA).

ECAs allow participants to interact with a physical or graphical figure that simulates a person in appearance, behavior, and dialect. These are essentially virtual humans, or avatars, who talk with participants. By taking greater advantage of these automated agents, some have projected there may be $11 billion in combined cost savings across a variety of business sectors by 2023.¹ The health care field is one sector in which CAs can play an important role. Because of their accessibility, CAs have the potential to improve mental health by combating health care inequities and stigma, encouraging disclosure from participants, and serving as companions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

CAs provide accessible health care for rural, low socioeconomic status (SES), and minority communities in a variety of advantageous ways. For example, one study found that long-term use of a text-based agent that combines motivational interviewing and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can support smoking cessation in adolescents of low SES.²

CAs can help vulnerable participants advocate for themselves and proactively maintain their mental health through access to health care resources. In specific cases, these agents equalize health care treatment for different populations. Even though some participants live in secluded areas or are blocked by barriers, these text-based agents can still provide self-help intervention for them at any time on an individual basis, regardless of their location or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they serve as highly cost-effective mental health promotion tools for large populations, some of which might not otherwise be reached by mental health care.

In combating mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety, studies have found that CAs are great treatment tools. For example, participants in an experimental group who received a self-help program based on CBT from a text-based CA named Woebot experienced significantly reduced depression symptoms when compared to the control group of participants, who received only information from a self-help electronic book.³ As a result, CAs might prove successful in treating younger populations who find online tools more feasible and accessible. Often, this population self-identifies depressive and anxiety symptoms without consulting a health care professional. Thus, this tool would prove useful to those who are bothered by the stigma of seeing a mental health professional.

Virtual human–based CAs also encourage participants to disclose more information in a nonjudgmental manner, especially among people with diseases with stigma. CAs use neutral languages, which may be helpful when dealing with stigmatized issues such as HIV, family planning, and abortion care because this heightens confidentiality and privacy. When participants believe that the agent does not “judge” or evaluate their capabilities, this elicits more sensitive information from them. For example, one study found that military service members who believed that they were interacting with a computer rather than a human operator reported lower fear of self-disclosure, displayed more sadness, and were rated by observers as more willing to disclose posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms.⁴ Additional findings show that participants prefer CAs when topics are highly sensitive and more likely to evoke negative self-admissions.

In what we hope will soon be a post–COVID-19 landscape of medicine, CAs are fast being used on the front lines of health care technology. Empathetic CAs can combat adverse effects of social exclusion during these pressing times. Etsuko Ishii, a researcher affiliated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associates demonstrated that a virtual CA was as effective as a COVID-19 companion because it uses natural language processing (NLP) and nonverbal facial expressions to give users the feeling that they are being treated with empathy.⁵ While minimizing the number of in-person interactions that could potentially spread COVID-19, these agents promote virtual companionship that mirrors natural conversations and provide emotional support with psychological safety as participants express their pent-up thoughts. Not only do these agents help recover mood quickly, but they also have the power to overcome geographic barriers, be constantly available, and alleviate the high demand for mental health care. As a result, CAs have the potential to facilitate better communication and sustain social interactions within the isolated environment the pandemic has created.

CAs can predict, detect, and determine treatment solutions for mental health conditions based on behavioral insights. These agents’ natural language processing also allows them to be powerful therapeutic agents that can serve different communities, particularly for populations with limited access to medical resources. As the use of CAs becomes more integrated into telemedicine, their utility will continue to grow as their proven versatility in many situations expands the boundaries of health care technology.
 

Ms. Wong, a medical student at New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury, conducts research related to mental health care services. She disclosed writing a telemental health software platform called Orchid. Dr. Vo, a board-certified psychiatrist, is the medical director of telehealth for the department of child and adolescent psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. She is a faculty member of the University of Pennsylvania, also in Philadelphia. Dr. Vo conducts digital health research focused on using automation and artificial intelligence for suicide risk screening and connecting patients to mental health care services. She disclosed serving as cofounder of Orchid.

References

1. Chatbots: Vendor opportunities & market forecasts 2020-2024. Juniper Research, 2020.

2. Simon P et al. On using chatbots to promote smoking cessation among adolescents of low socioeconomic status, Artificial Intelligence and Work: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI) 2019 Fall Symposium, 2019.

3. Fitzpatrick KK et al. JMIR Mental Health. 2017;4(2):e19.

4. Lucas GM et al. Front Robot AI. 2017 Oct 12. doi: 10.3389/frobt.2017.00051.

5. Ishii E et al. ERICA: An empathetic android companion for COVID-19 quarantine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.02325.

At Wayne State University’s Stress, Trauma, and Anxiety Research Clinic (STARC) in Michigan, researchers are developing novel interventions for treating some very ancient phobias hardwired into the human brain. By using augmented reality as means of conducting exposure therapy, STARC researchers – including Shantanu Madaboosi, Rakesh Ramaswamy, and Lana Grasser – and STARC director Arash Javanbakht, MD, have produced compelling evidence that they can free patients of their often debilitating fears of spiders, dogs, and snakes. Yet their work doesn’t stop there, and research into treating anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder among first responders and others with high-stress occupations is ongoing.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Javanbakht, a psychiatrist, about the technological advances that have made this work possible; the future of remote-based psychiatry; and his tarantula colleague, Tony.
 

Augmenting exposure therapy

How did you begin using artificial intelligence as a way of delivering exposure therapy?

Exposure therapy is a very effective treatment for phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and PTSD. But the problem we had is that, if someone comes to me and says they’re afraid of dogs, snakes, or spiders, I don’t have those in my office. Or, if its social phobia, I can’t create those scenarios. So, despite being such an effective treatment, it’s not utilized as much as it should be.

Several years ago, I saw a TED talk by the CEO of an augmented reality company who happened to be a neuroscientist. I thought the concept was amazing, because it offered a way to overcome those limitations.

Mixed augmented reality allows us to bring all those feared objects to the clinic. I can bring my Labrador to the office for someone who’s afraid of dogs, and they can get the exposure to that one dog. But we know good exposure therapy needs to be generalizable, with as many different breeds of dogs as possible, and is context dependent. If the patient sees a dog in their neighborhood, their fear response may come back. Doing it in a real-life context, and offering as many contexts as possible, makes it more effective.

Augmented reality allows all of these options because you can have as many different types of virtual objects as you want, and the difference between augmented reality and virtual reality is that augmented reality happens in a real-life context. You wear the goggles and you can walk around the environment and track the object, so the context is more realistic.
 

When did you begin researching augmented reality as a clinical tool?

I became a faculty member here in 2015, right out of my residency training, and I think it was around 2016 or 2017 that we began this work.

I’m very much involved in exposure therapy, utilize it myself, train others, and research how it works and changes the brain. I knew the ins and outs and what would make a better exposure therapy, based on my knowledge of neuroscience.

We spend time thinking about how we can apply these neuroscientific principles in software that can also be easily used by a not very technologically savvy therapist. Because that has been a big barrier when it comes to technology and human use in medicine.

Initially, we had a company create the software for us, but we’ve since brought all the programming inside.

The cool thing about these augmented reality devices is that they have excellent surface mapping. As soon as the person wears the goggles, it automatically maps the surfaces and provides a 3D view of the patient’s environment on the therapist’s computer. Say you’re treating a patient with a fear of spiders. Through drop-down menus, the therapist can choose what type of spider, its color and size, where it should be placed, and the motion. I can choose to move the spider from 6 feet away on the floor to the walls to the ceiling.
 

Virtual phobias, real fear

A big question for a lot of people was if the spiders are virtual, will they be scary, because it has to be realistic enough to create a fear response for the therapy to work. We use a couple of wires that you can put on a person’s finger and hook them up to a tablet or a cell phone. This provides an online measure of a person’s autonomic sympathetic response.

Like a lie detector test?

Exactly. We put that on their fingers and exposed them to a real-life tarantula and to our virtual tarantulas, and the fear response was no different. That means these do create an objective fear reaction in the body.

We also had people who said, “I know this is not real. I won’t be scared.” And when we started the therapy, it was with a tiny spider 5 meters away from them, and they’d lift their legs off the floor.

With the treatment, we’d come to one room and start with a very little spider, far from them. Then gradually we move them up to bigger, more diverse types of spiders, which are moving around. The patient comes near and tries to touch them.

Then at some point, I’d put a spiderweb on the door, put a few spiders on that, open the door, and have the patient walk through it. They kept walking through this spiderweb.

When they were desensitized to these spiders in this context – and as I said, context is important – we’d go to another room. This was darker, more like a basement, and we’d continue the same thing. That would actually take much less time because they already had desensitized a lot.

In our field, sense of control is very important, especially for when a patient goes home. So at the end, I’d leave the room and talk to the patient via a baby monitor. The patient was surrounded by 20 tarantulas, without the prompt moving around the environment.

Now that they’re desensitized to my virtual spiders, the question is, how would that apply to a real spider? So, we had a real live tarantula, whose name was Tony Stark, because we’re the STARC lab. We’d put Tony at the end of a long hallway before the treatment and see how close the patients could get to him.

Everybody who got the treatment was able to touch the tank containing the tarantula. It was only one treatment session; nobody’s was longer than 1 hour, and the average treatment time was 38 minutes.
 

That’s pretty effective.

It’s pretty good, compared with other studies. And I believe this is because of all the components I mentioned: being able to use your real environment; combining it with the real tarantula; the variety of the types of the feared objects; and, of course, giving the patient a sense of autonomy at the end.

Then we had to see how prolonged the effects are. We had them come in 1 week and 1 month after the treatment. I’d remind them of the principles of good exposure therapy and ask them to keep practicing at home between the sessions, looking at pictures and videos. But we never tested who did or did not do it.

After 1 week and 1 month, the effects were either the same or better. A larger number of people at 1 month were able to touch the tarantula than right after treatment.
 

Treating PTSD in first responders

Did you start with spiders and dogs because those are common fears?

We started with spiders because that worked with the initial goal of creating a prototype. Spiders’ behavior is simple enough for the programming, which takes a lot of time. Another reason for choosing spiders was that we had a lot of other studies of real and virtual reality exposure therapy to compare against.

I think another reason for our success is that, when you do real exposure therapy, you have just one scared tarantula in the corner of their tank, and they don’t listen to you. But my spiders listen to me and do exactly what I tell them.

After our initial success, we obtained more funds to expand it to other phobias. The cool thing is that we don’t need separate software for different phobias. You can choose dogs or snakes, add it to the person’s environment, and decide their behaviors.

We just started a clinical trial using dogs, and another group in Turkey is running a clinical trial with dogs. Eastern Michigan University is working with spiders. And a clinic at the University of Nebraska Medical Center is going to start using them in real-world clinics, not for research.

We have another project whose goal is helping reduce the impact of trauma and also treating PTSD in first responders, who are exposed to a lot of horrible things. Rates of PTSD are around 20%-30% among cops, firefighters, and EMS personnel.

They commonly find it very painful being in crowds because the fight-or-flight instinct in the brain is constantly screening for any sign of threat in their environment. We’re working on them walking into an empty room wearing the goggles, and then their therapist can scale the stimulus up and down.

There’ll be two people in front of you talking to each other, and then another group comes in, and people get louder. People can look at you and talk to you. There’s kids running, Fourth of July fireworks, and other things that might bother someone who’s been involved in gun- or explosion-related traumas. You gradually scale up when the person is next to their therapist.

Another thing we’re doing is related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. If a young person dies in a CPR situation, that is really painful and traumatic. So, for exposure therapy to that, we’re creating a difficult CPR scenario when that person may die. The responder wears the goggles and basically watches a group of people doing CPR while standing next to a therapist who can help them navigate it and then scale it off.

Another goal is combining this with telemedicine, where the person can do it in their real-life environment. Imagine a person with military trauma. You can put them back in the barracks, connected with their psychiatrists via telemedicine. Then we would put humans in military fatigues near them and have them interact with them to feel comfortable with that situation.
 

What else is next for you and your group?

The next biggest challenge that we’re tackling is PTSD, because of course creating human-encounter scenarios is much more complicated than spiders and dogs. We’re in the midst of developing this so we can basically bring it to people’s homes.

We’ve been working with some military personnel to see if we can basically give a device to a veteran with PTSD, so they can go home and practice on their own.

There’s another possibility for training. Let’s take the example of a police force, which can have a lot of difficulties and mistakes because of lack of exposure and training. They can wear these goggles, get fully geared up, and be placed in encounters with people of different backgrounds, of different severity, with people who could be severely mentally ill or present different challenges for the officers.

Those situations can teach them a lot. I’m the creator of this thing, but even I’m often surprised by how realistic this technology can be. I find myself interacting with avatars the same way I would if they were real humans. I actually had one of my colleagues, when we started launching the programming with the dogs, immediately jump back. It’s just like the animal brain reacts to them.
 

Last question: Do you actually interact with Tony, the tarantula?

Oh, Tony is my friend. Unfortunately, he’s not with our lab at this moment. He’s on a sabbatical at Eastern Michigan University for their clinical trials. But yes, I’ve held him. He’s very friendly.

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

At Wayne State University’s Stress, Trauma, and Anxiety Research Clinic (STARC) in Michigan, researchers are developing novel interventions for treating some very ancient phobias hardwired into the human brain. By using augmented reality as means of conducting exposure therapy, STARC researchers – including Shantanu Madaboosi, Rakesh Ramaswamy, and Lana Grasser – and STARC director Arash Javanbakht, MD, have produced compelling evidence that they can free patients of their often debilitating fears of spiders, dogs, and snakes. Yet their work doesn’t stop there, and research into treating anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder among first responders and others with high-stress occupations is ongoing.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Javanbakht, a psychiatrist, about the technological advances that have made this work possible; the future of remote-based psychiatry; and his tarantula colleague, Tony.
 

Augmenting exposure therapy

How did you begin using artificial intelligence as a way of delivering exposure therapy?

Exposure therapy is a very effective treatment for phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and PTSD. But the problem we had is that, if someone comes to me and says they’re afraid of dogs, snakes, or spiders, I don’t have those in my office. Or, if its social phobia, I can’t create those scenarios. So, despite being such an effective treatment, it’s not utilized as much as it should be.

Several years ago, I saw a TED talk by the CEO of an augmented reality company who happened to be a neuroscientist. I thought the concept was amazing, because it offered a way to overcome those limitations.

Mixed augmented reality allows us to bring all those feared objects to the clinic. I can bring my Labrador to the office for someone who’s afraid of dogs, and they can get the exposure to that one dog. But we know good exposure therapy needs to be generalizable, with as many different breeds of dogs as possible, and is context dependent. If the patient sees a dog in their neighborhood, their fear response may come back. Doing it in a real-life context, and offering as many contexts as possible, makes it more effective.

Augmented reality allows all of these options because you can have as many different types of virtual objects as you want, and the difference between augmented reality and virtual reality is that augmented reality happens in a real-life context. You wear the goggles and you can walk around the environment and track the object, so the context is more realistic.
 

When did you begin researching augmented reality as a clinical tool?

I became a faculty member here in 2015, right out of my residency training, and I think it was around 2016 or 2017 that we began this work.

I’m very much involved in exposure therapy, utilize it myself, train others, and research how it works and changes the brain. I knew the ins and outs and what would make a better exposure therapy, based on my knowledge of neuroscience.

We spend time thinking about how we can apply these neuroscientific principles in software that can also be easily used by a not very technologically savvy therapist. Because that has been a big barrier when it comes to technology and human use in medicine.

Initially, we had a company create the software for us, but we’ve since brought all the programming inside.

The cool thing about these augmented reality devices is that they have excellent surface mapping. As soon as the person wears the goggles, it automatically maps the surfaces and provides a 3D view of the patient’s environment on the therapist’s computer. Say you’re treating a patient with a fear of spiders. Through drop-down menus, the therapist can choose what type of spider, its color and size, where it should be placed, and the motion. I can choose to move the spider from 6 feet away on the floor to the walls to the ceiling.
 

Virtual phobias, real fear

A big question for a lot of people was if the spiders are virtual, will they be scary, because it has to be realistic enough to create a fear response for the therapy to work. We use a couple of wires that you can put on a person’s finger and hook them up to a tablet or a cell phone. This provides an online measure of a person’s autonomic sympathetic response.

Like a lie detector test?

Exactly. We put that on their fingers and exposed them to a real-life tarantula and to our virtual tarantulas, and the fear response was no different. That means these do create an objective fear reaction in the body.

We also had people who said, “I know this is not real. I won’t be scared.” And when we started the therapy, it was with a tiny spider 5 meters away from them, and they’d lift their legs off the floor.

With the treatment, we’d come to one room and start with a very little spider, far from them. Then gradually we move them up to bigger, more diverse types of spiders, which are moving around. The patient comes near and tries to touch them.

Then at some point, I’d put a spiderweb on the door, put a few spiders on that, open the door, and have the patient walk through it. They kept walking through this spiderweb.

When they were desensitized to these spiders in this context – and as I said, context is important – we’d go to another room. This was darker, more like a basement, and we’d continue the same thing. That would actually take much less time because they already had desensitized a lot.

In our field, sense of control is very important, especially for when a patient goes home. So at the end, I’d leave the room and talk to the patient via a baby monitor. The patient was surrounded by 20 tarantulas, without the prompt moving around the environment.

Now that they’re desensitized to my virtual spiders, the question is, how would that apply to a real spider? So, we had a real live tarantula, whose name was Tony Stark, because we’re the STARC lab. We’d put Tony at the end of a long hallway before the treatment and see how close the patients could get to him.

Everybody who got the treatment was able to touch the tank containing the tarantula. It was only one treatment session; nobody’s was longer than 1 hour, and the average treatment time was 38 minutes.
 

That’s pretty effective.

It’s pretty good, compared with other studies. And I believe this is because of all the components I mentioned: being able to use your real environment; combining it with the real tarantula; the variety of the types of the feared objects; and, of course, giving the patient a sense of autonomy at the end.

Then we had to see how prolonged the effects are. We had them come in 1 week and 1 month after the treatment. I’d remind them of the principles of good exposure therapy and ask them to keep practicing at home between the sessions, looking at pictures and videos. But we never tested who did or did not do it.

After 1 week and 1 month, the effects were either the same or better. A larger number of people at 1 month were able to touch the tarantula than right after treatment.
 

Treating PTSD in first responders

Did you start with spiders and dogs because those are common fears?

We started with spiders because that worked with the initial goal of creating a prototype. Spiders’ behavior is simple enough for the programming, which takes a lot of time. Another reason for choosing spiders was that we had a lot of other studies of real and virtual reality exposure therapy to compare against.

I think another reason for our success is that, when you do real exposure therapy, you have just one scared tarantula in the corner of their tank, and they don’t listen to you. But my spiders listen to me and do exactly what I tell them.

After our initial success, we obtained more funds to expand it to other phobias. The cool thing is that we don’t need separate software for different phobias. You can choose dogs or snakes, add it to the person’s environment, and decide their behaviors.

We just started a clinical trial using dogs, and another group in Turkey is running a clinical trial with dogs. Eastern Michigan University is working with spiders. And a clinic at the University of Nebraska Medical Center is going to start using them in real-world clinics, not for research.

We have another project whose goal is helping reduce the impact of trauma and also treating PTSD in first responders, who are exposed to a lot of horrible things. Rates of PTSD are around 20%-30% among cops, firefighters, and EMS personnel.

They commonly find it very painful being in crowds because the fight-or-flight instinct in the brain is constantly screening for any sign of threat in their environment. We’re working on them walking into an empty room wearing the goggles, and then their therapist can scale the stimulus up and down.

There’ll be two people in front of you talking to each other, and then another group comes in, and people get louder. People can look at you and talk to you. There’s kids running, Fourth of July fireworks, and other things that might bother someone who’s been involved in gun- or explosion-related traumas. You gradually scale up when the person is next to their therapist.

Another thing we’re doing is related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. If a young person dies in a CPR situation, that is really painful and traumatic. So, for exposure therapy to that, we’re creating a difficult CPR scenario when that person may die. The responder wears the goggles and basically watches a group of people doing CPR while standing next to a therapist who can help them navigate it and then scale it off.

Another goal is combining this with telemedicine, where the person can do it in their real-life environment. Imagine a person with military trauma. You can put them back in the barracks, connected with their psychiatrists via telemedicine. Then we would put humans in military fatigues near them and have them interact with them to feel comfortable with that situation.
 

What else is next for you and your group?

The next biggest challenge that we’re tackling is PTSD, because of course creating human-encounter scenarios is much more complicated than spiders and dogs. We’re in the midst of developing this so we can basically bring it to people’s homes.

We’ve been working with some military personnel to see if we can basically give a device to a veteran with PTSD, so they can go home and practice on their own.

There’s another possibility for training. Let’s take the example of a police force, which can have a lot of difficulties and mistakes because of lack of exposure and training. They can wear these goggles, get fully geared up, and be placed in encounters with people of different backgrounds, of different severity, with people who could be severely mentally ill or present different challenges for the officers.

Those situations can teach them a lot. I’m the creator of this thing, but even I’m often surprised by how realistic this technology can be. I find myself interacting with avatars the same way I would if they were real humans. I actually had one of my colleagues, when we started launching the programming with the dogs, immediately jump back. It’s just like the animal brain reacts to them.
 

Last question: Do you actually interact with Tony, the tarantula?

Oh, Tony is my friend. Unfortunately, he’s not with our lab at this moment. He’s on a sabbatical at Eastern Michigan University for their clinical trials. But yes, I’ve held him. He’s very friendly.

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

At Wayne State University’s Stress, Trauma, and Anxiety Research Clinic (STARC) in Michigan, researchers are developing novel interventions for treating some very ancient phobias hardwired into the human brain. By using augmented reality as means of conducting exposure therapy, STARC researchers – including Shantanu Madaboosi, Rakesh Ramaswamy, and Lana Grasser – and STARC director Arash Javanbakht, MD, have produced compelling evidence that they can free patients of their often debilitating fears of spiders, dogs, and snakes. Yet their work doesn’t stop there, and research into treating anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder among first responders and others with high-stress occupations is ongoing.

This news organization spoke with Dr. Javanbakht, a psychiatrist, about the technological advances that have made this work possible; the future of remote-based psychiatry; and his tarantula colleague, Tony.
 

Augmenting exposure therapy

How did you begin using artificial intelligence as a way of delivering exposure therapy?

Exposure therapy is a very effective treatment for phobias, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and PTSD. But the problem we had is that, if someone comes to me and says they’re afraid of dogs, snakes, or spiders, I don’t have those in my office. Or, if its social phobia, I can’t create those scenarios. So, despite being such an effective treatment, it’s not utilized as much as it should be.

Several years ago, I saw a TED talk by the CEO of an augmented reality company who happened to be a neuroscientist. I thought the concept was amazing, because it offered a way to overcome those limitations.

Mixed augmented reality allows us to bring all those feared objects to the clinic. I can bring my Labrador to the office for someone who’s afraid of dogs, and they can get the exposure to that one dog. But we know good exposure therapy needs to be generalizable, with as many different breeds of dogs as possible, and is context dependent. If the patient sees a dog in their neighborhood, their fear response may come back. Doing it in a real-life context, and offering as many contexts as possible, makes it more effective.

Augmented reality allows all of these options because you can have as many different types of virtual objects as you want, and the difference between augmented reality and virtual reality is that augmented reality happens in a real-life context. You wear the goggles and you can walk around the environment and track the object, so the context is more realistic.
 

When did you begin researching augmented reality as a clinical tool?

I became a faculty member here in 2015, right out of my residency training, and I think it was around 2016 or 2017 that we began this work.

I’m very much involved in exposure therapy, utilize it myself, train others, and research how it works and changes the brain. I knew the ins and outs and what would make a better exposure therapy, based on my knowledge of neuroscience.

We spend time thinking about how we can apply these neuroscientific principles in software that can also be easily used by a not very technologically savvy therapist. Because that has been a big barrier when it comes to technology and human use in medicine.

Initially, we had a company create the software for us, but we’ve since brought all the programming inside.

The cool thing about these augmented reality devices is that they have excellent surface mapping. As soon as the person wears the goggles, it automatically maps the surfaces and provides a 3D view of the patient’s environment on the therapist’s computer. Say you’re treating a patient with a fear of spiders. Through drop-down menus, the therapist can choose what type of spider, its color and size, where it should be placed, and the motion. I can choose to move the spider from 6 feet away on the floor to the walls to the ceiling.
 

Virtual phobias, real fear

A big question for a lot of people was if the spiders are virtual, will they be scary, because it has to be realistic enough to create a fear response for the therapy to work. We use a couple of wires that you can put on a person’s finger and hook them up to a tablet or a cell phone. This provides an online measure of a person’s autonomic sympathetic response.

Like a lie detector test?

Exactly. We put that on their fingers and exposed them to a real-life tarantula and to our virtual tarantulas, and the fear response was no different. That means these do create an objective fear reaction in the body.

We also had people who said, “I know this is not real. I won’t be scared.” And when we started the therapy, it was with a tiny spider 5 meters away from them, and they’d lift their legs off the floor.

With the treatment, we’d come to one room and start with a very little spider, far from them. Then gradually we move them up to bigger, more diverse types of spiders, which are moving around. The patient comes near and tries to touch them.

Then at some point, I’d put a spiderweb on the door, put a few spiders on that, open the door, and have the patient walk through it. They kept walking through this spiderweb.

When they were desensitized to these spiders in this context – and as I said, context is important – we’d go to another room. This was darker, more like a basement, and we’d continue the same thing. That would actually take much less time because they already had desensitized a lot.

In our field, sense of control is very important, especially for when a patient goes home. So at the end, I’d leave the room and talk to the patient via a baby monitor. The patient was surrounded by 20 tarantulas, without the prompt moving around the environment.

Now that they’re desensitized to my virtual spiders, the question is, how would that apply to a real spider? So, we had a real live tarantula, whose name was Tony Stark, because we’re the STARC lab. We’d put Tony at the end of a long hallway before the treatment and see how close the patients could get to him.

Everybody who got the treatment was able to touch the tank containing the tarantula. It was only one treatment session; nobody’s was longer than 1 hour, and the average treatment time was 38 minutes.
 

That’s pretty effective.

It’s pretty good, compared with other studies. And I believe this is because of all the components I mentioned: being able to use your real environment; combining it with the real tarantula; the variety of the types of the feared objects; and, of course, giving the patient a sense of autonomy at the end.

Then we had to see how prolonged the effects are. We had them come in 1 week and 1 month after the treatment. I’d remind them of the principles of good exposure therapy and ask them to keep practicing at home between the sessions, looking at pictures and videos. But we never tested who did or did not do it.

After 1 week and 1 month, the effects were either the same or better. A larger number of people at 1 month were able to touch the tarantula than right after treatment.
 

Treating PTSD in first responders

Did you start with spiders and dogs because those are common fears?

We started with spiders because that worked with the initial goal of creating a prototype. Spiders’ behavior is simple enough for the programming, which takes a lot of time. Another reason for choosing spiders was that we had a lot of other studies of real and virtual reality exposure therapy to compare against.

I think another reason for our success is that, when you do real exposure therapy, you have just one scared tarantula in the corner of their tank, and they don’t listen to you. But my spiders listen to me and do exactly what I tell them.

After our initial success, we obtained more funds to expand it to other phobias. The cool thing is that we don’t need separate software for different phobias. You can choose dogs or snakes, add it to the person’s environment, and decide their behaviors.

We just started a clinical trial using dogs, and another group in Turkey is running a clinical trial with dogs. Eastern Michigan University is working with spiders. And a clinic at the University of Nebraska Medical Center is going to start using them in real-world clinics, not for research.

We have another project whose goal is helping reduce the impact of trauma and also treating PTSD in first responders, who are exposed to a lot of horrible things. Rates of PTSD are around 20%-30% among cops, firefighters, and EMS personnel.

They commonly find it very painful being in crowds because the fight-or-flight instinct in the brain is constantly screening for any sign of threat in their environment. We’re working on them walking into an empty room wearing the goggles, and then their therapist can scale the stimulus up and down.

There’ll be two people in front of you talking to each other, and then another group comes in, and people get louder. People can look at you and talk to you. There’s kids running, Fourth of July fireworks, and other things that might bother someone who’s been involved in gun- or explosion-related traumas. You gradually scale up when the person is next to their therapist.

Another thing we’re doing is related to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. If a young person dies in a CPR situation, that is really painful and traumatic. So, for exposure therapy to that, we’re creating a difficult CPR scenario when that person may die. The responder wears the goggles and basically watches a group of people doing CPR while standing next to a therapist who can help them navigate it and then scale it off.

Another goal is combining this with telemedicine, where the person can do it in their real-life environment. Imagine a person with military trauma. You can put them back in the barracks, connected with their psychiatrists via telemedicine. Then we would put humans in military fatigues near them and have them interact with them to feel comfortable with that situation.
 

What else is next for you and your group?

The next biggest challenge that we’re tackling is PTSD, because of course creating human-encounter scenarios is much more complicated than spiders and dogs. We’re in the midst of developing this so we can basically bring it to people’s homes.

We’ve been working with some military personnel to see if we can basically give a device to a veteran with PTSD, so they can go home and practice on their own.

There’s another possibility for training. Let’s take the example of a police force, which can have a lot of difficulties and mistakes because of lack of exposure and training. They can wear these goggles, get fully geared up, and be placed in encounters with people of different backgrounds, of different severity, with people who could be severely mentally ill or present different challenges for the officers.

Those situations can teach them a lot. I’m the creator of this thing, but even I’m often surprised by how realistic this technology can be. I find myself interacting with avatars the same way I would if they were real humans. I actually had one of my colleagues, when we started launching the programming with the dogs, immediately jump back. It’s just like the animal brain reacts to them.
 

Last question: Do you actually interact with Tony, the tarantula?

Oh, Tony is my friend. Unfortunately, he’s not with our lab at this moment. He’s on a sabbatical at Eastern Michigan University for their clinical trials. But yes, I’ve held him. He’s very friendly.

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

Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

HighGradeRoots/iStock/Getty Images

While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.

Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.

The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
 

Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’

“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.

However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.

There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.

The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.

Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
 

More support for cannabis in medical disease

Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.

In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.

While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis. Dr. Martinez indicated that a conservative approach is prudent with the limited evidence available for patients with psychiatric disorders.
 

Empirical evidence for therapeutic role

In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.

“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”

In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.

“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.

Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

HighGradeRoots/iStock/Getty Images

While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.

Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.

The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
 

Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’

“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.

However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.

There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.

The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.

Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
 

More support for cannabis in medical disease

Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.

In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.

While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis. Dr. Martinez indicated that a conservative approach is prudent with the limited evidence available for patients with psychiatric disorders.
 

Empirical evidence for therapeutic role

In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.

“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”

In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.

“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.

Marijuana use is now a legal activity in many parts of the United States, but those managing patients with psychiatric disorders are in the difficult position of determining whether this use is helpful, harmful, or irrelevant to the underlying illness on the basis of limited and largely incomplete data, according to an overview of this issue presented at the virtual Psychopharmacology Update presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

HighGradeRoots/iStock/Getty Images

While there is clear evidence that cannabis use relative to the general population “is more prevalent among patients with psychiatric disorders,” it is less certain how often this use is risky, said Diana M. Martinez, MD, professor of psychiatry at Columbia University in New York.

Independent of euphoric effects, cannabis can be perceived by individuals with psychiatric diagnosis as self-medication for feelings of stress, social anxiety, and insomnia, among other symptoms. These are the same reasons why many individuals without psychiatric conditions use cannabis-containing products.

The perception that cannabis use is generally benign presumably explains the successful efforts at legalization, but there are risks for those with or without psychiatric illnesses, Dr. Martinez pointed out at the meeting, sponsored by Medscape Live. Not least, about 20% of regular users of cannabis develop cannabis use disorder (CUD), a condition defined in the DSM-5 as the continued use of cannabis despite adverse consequences, such as dependence.
 

Impact of severe CUD ‘incapacitating’

“Of those who meet criteria for CUD, 23% have severe CUD, which is an incapacitating form,” reported Dr. Martinez, citing work led by Deborah Hasin, PhD, professor of clinical epidemiology at Columbia University.

However, relative to otherwise healthy individuals, those with a psychiatric diagnosis might face greater benefits or greater risks from cannabis use, according to Dr. Martinez, who cited a 2017 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).

This report evaluated the potential risks and benefits on the basis of published studies.

There is limited evidence that regular cannabis increases rather than modifies symptoms of mania and hypomania in patients with bipolar disorder, according to the report. The report also cited limited evidence that cannabis use increases severity of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There was limited evidence of adverse effects on symptoms of anxiety, although this appeared to depend on daily or nearly daily use.

The report found no data of acceptable quality to draw conclusions about the effect of cannabis use on symptoms of depression.

In patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), “a recent study showed that daily but not occasional use of cannabis increased impulsivity but not inattention, working memory, or verbal intelligence,” said Dr. Martinez, citing a study published this year.

Some evidence also suggests that patients with a psychiatric disorder might benefit from cannabis use, but, again, this evidence is limited. For one example, it includes a potential reduction in symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder, Dr. Martinez said.
 

More support for cannabis in medical disease

Relative to the quality of evidence supporting benefit from cannabis in psychiatric disease, the data appear to be stronger for patients with medical illnesses, such as cancer. For example, Dr. Martinez cited evidence that tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), a major active ingredient in cannabis, improves sleep in the context of a medical illnesses. There is also evidence for anxiolytic effects in patients with a medical illness, although that is weaker.

In patients with or without a psychiatric disorder, marijuana does pose a risk of substance abuse disorder, and it shares the risks of intoxicants, such as inattention leading to increased risk of accidents, including motor vehicle accidents. This pertains to those with or without a psychiatric or medical condition, Dr. Martinez said.

While intermittent light use of cannabis appears to pose no risk or a very low risk of long-term adverse effects on cognition, at least in patients without psychiatric disorders, Dr. Martinez indicated that the risk-benefit ratio for any individual is use dependent. The risk of CUD, for example, increases with the frequency of exposure and the potency of the cannabis. Dr. Martinez indicated that a conservative approach is prudent with the limited evidence available for patients with psychiatric disorders.
 

Empirical evidence for therapeutic role

In published studies, other researchers have expressed interest in a potential therapeutic role of cannabis for psychiatric disorders, but there appears to be a general consensus that the supportive data remain weak. One expert who has written on this topic, Jerome Sarris, PhD, professor of integrative mental health, NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Westmead, Australia, said that empirical evidence does support a benefit in selected patients.

“Of course, high THC forms are strongly discouraged in people with schizophrenia or high risk of developing psychotic disorder, or in youths,” Dr. Sarris explained. “However, there is a potential role for use in people with sleep and pain issues, and many find it beneficial to also assist with affective disorder symptoms.”

In a systematic review he led that was published last year, the evidence to support cannabis for psychiatric disorders was characterized as “embryonic.” However, small studies and case reports appear to support benefit for such indications as ADHD if precautions are taken.

“I certainly would not discourage use of prescribed standardized medicinal cannabis therapeutics for all people with psychiatric disorders,” Dr. Sarris said. He suggested that attention should be made to the THC potency and terpene composition of the products that patients with psychiatric disorders are taking.

In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.

The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.

Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.

Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.

The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
 

Social and emotional support

Despite rising mental health care needs, more than 3 in 4 U.S. adults (77.5%) indicated that they always or usually received the social and emotional support they needed during the pandemic period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.

Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.

However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.

Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.

“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.

As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.

One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.

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

In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.

The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.

Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.

Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.

The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
 

Social and emotional support

Despite rising mental health care needs, more than 3 in 4 U.S. adults (77.5%) indicated that they always or usually received the social and emotional support they needed during the pandemic period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.

Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.

However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.

Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.

“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.

As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.

One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.

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

In 2020, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, about 1 in 5 (20.3%) U.S. adults received mental health treatment, up slightly from 19.2% in 2019, new data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show.

Compared with 2019, the pandemic year of 2020 also saw an uptick in adults receiving prescription medication for a mental health problem (from 15.8% to 16.5%) or counseling or therapy from a mental health professional (from 9.5% to 10.1%), the CDC says.

The percentage of adults who had received mental health treatment in the prior year decreased with age, from 20.9% among people aged 18-44 to 20.5% among those aged 45-64 to 18.7% among those aged 65 and older.

Women were more likely than men to have received any mental health treatment (25.6% vs 14.6%), according to an analysis of 2020 data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS).

This is consistent with their higher prevalence of common mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and their greater willingness to seek out mental health care, Emily Terlizzi, MPH, and Tina Norris, PhD, with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), note in their data brief published online Oct. 20.

Non-Hispanic White adults (24.4%) were more likely than non-Hispanic Black (15.3%), Hispanic (12.65) and non-Hispanic Asian (7.7%) adults to be treated with a mental health issue.

The percentage of adults treated for a mental health problem increased as their place of residence became more rural, from 19.3% for those living in large urban areas to 21.7% among those residing in nonmetropolitan areas.
 

Social and emotional support

Despite rising mental health care needs, more than 3 in 4 U.S. adults (77.5%) indicated that they always or usually received the social and emotional support they needed during the pandemic period of July to Dec. 2020, also based on NHIS data.

Social and emotional support is associated with well-being and a reduced risk of early death, NCHS researchers Peter Boersma, MPH, and Anjel Vahratian, PhD, MPH, note in their data brief.

However, social and emotional support varies by age and race/ethnicity.

Groups with lower levels of social and emotional support are Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian adults; adults neither married nor living with a partner; adults without another adult in the home; adults with less than a high school education; and adults with disabilities.

“While most adults always or usually had the emotional support they needed, 1 in 10 adults rarely or never received the social and emotional support they needed,” the authors report.

As reported by this news organization, 2020 data from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) show social isolation in older adults is a major public health concern that contributes to heart disease, depression, and premature death.

The report urged health care systems to take urgent action to address social isolation and loneliness in older adults and proposed a series of recommendations for addressing social isolation.

One recommendation was to improve awareness by including measures of social isolation and loneliness in health surveys, such as the NHIS, which began asking about perceived social and emotional support in July 2020.

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

Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.

alexsokolov/thinkstockphotos.com

She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.

“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.

Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.

“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”

Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly the care he rendered did not fit into the hospital’s scheme of how things should be done; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.

“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”

Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.

“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”

George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”

In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”

Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”

Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.

“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”

In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.

alexsokolov/thinkstockphotos.com

She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.

“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.

Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.

“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”

Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly the care he rendered did not fit into the hospital’s scheme of how things should be done; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.

“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”

Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.

“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”

George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”

In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”

Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”

Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.

“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”

In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

Dr. Smith’s patient, Anna, was struggling. Her mother, with whom she lived, had died, her boyfriend had broken up with her, her teenagers were being difficult, and her anxiety about catching COVID left her isolated and lonely.

alexsokolov/thinkstockphotos.com

She was working in psychotherapy and a number of medications had been tried, but when Anna suggested that her children might be better off without her, Dr. Smith referred her to an inpatient unit at a local hospital for admission. He faxed over the clinical and demographic information that the hospital wanted, and he never heard a word from the inpatient unit until Anna texted him that she had been discharged. She noted that the hospitalization had been helpful.

“I have an appointment next week with a therapist,” Anna texted.

Dr. Smith was puzzled and he conveyed that in his response to her.

“They told me that you are the psychiatrist and I should see you once a month and that I need a therapist to see weekly.”

Dr. Smith remained puzzled. At times he had seen Anna weekly, and he always saw her for 50-minute (or longer) sessions, but he realized that the person in charge of discharge had decided that psychiatrists are not psychotherapists. As a psychiatrist who sees patients for psychotherapy, Dr. Smith was not in Anna’s health insurance plan, and perhaps the hospital discharged people to see in-network clinicians. Or perhaps they thought that if he were a better psychiatrist, his patient would not need an inpatient admission. All he could do was surmise, but clearly the care he rendered did not fit into the hospital’s scheme of how things should be done; they had changed Anna’s treatment without the courtesy of a phone call.

“This happens to me all the time,” said Sally Waddington, MD, a psychiatrist in private practice in Laurel, Md. “Hospitals will tell my patients that psychiatrists are for medications and they need a separate therapist. It really undermines the treatment.”

Ramin Mojtabai, MD, PhD, MPH, is a psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore. He has done research on trends in psychotherapy among psychiatrists and in 2008 published a study which showed that only 10.8% of psychiatrists see all of their patients for psychotherapy. The same data, however, revealed that 59.4% – or a majority – of psychiatrists see at least some of their patients for psychotherapy.

“Unfortunately, our profession has been defined by the insurance industry for decades,” Dr. Mojtabai said in an interview, “so, I am not surprised that the patient was told to see a ‘proper’ psychotherapist.”

George Dawson, MD, spent 22 years as a psychiatrist on an inpatient unit in Minnesota. On his blog, “Real Psychiatry,” Dr. Dawson has a lengthy post dated Oct. 3, 2021, titled “The problem with inpatient units.” Dr. Dawson writes, “There is a lack of collaboration with outpatient staff: Good inpatient care proceeds from the assumption that the main focus of treatment is with the primary psychiatrist or treatment team. ... The only acceptable reasons are that the patient does not have outpatient care, the patient refuses to consent to the communication, or the outpatient physician or their proxy cannot be contacted with a good faith effort. Being on both ends of that call – a good faith effort to me means leaving a cell phone number with the message to ‘call me at any time.’ I have found that effort is required in an era of overproduction and no set times in the outpatient clinic for necessary phone calls.”

In an interview, Dr. Dawson commented on the predicament of Dr. Smith and Anna. “The inpatient staff seem to have a grandiose idea of where the care should be centered and that is with the outpatient doctor making the referral. Any plan not involving the referring doctor is not likely to be successful.”

Dr. Waddington talked about how she handles the situation when an inpatient unit refers her patients to a separate psychotherapist. “Usually, I discuss it with my patient. Sometimes they want a change and so I continue to see them for medications. Most of the time, they keep seeing me for therapy.” She went on to note, “I recently had a patient who was in the hospital and was referred to a trauma specialist for therapy. The referral was probably appropriate in her case; I just wish they had discussed this with me first.”

Dr. Smith calls himself “a dinosaur” – he likes treating patients with a combination of medications and psychotherapy and he does not enjoy seeing patients for brief visits for medication management. He was, however, concerned that Anna had been stretching out the time between sessions because of financial concerns, so he suggested she could meet with the therapist and see if she thought this might be helpful to her. If it was, he recommended she find a psychiatrist in her insurance network to prescribe her medications, with the hope that this would be a reasonable alternative to their current conundrum.

“I believe that many patients are best served by having their care come from a single psychiatrist and not treatment split between clinicians; however, I recognize that this is not always financially the best option. Anna might benefit from not having the financial stress of care from a psychiatrist where she is not reimbursed as well – if at all – by insurance. Still, I am annoyed; it feels like the inpatient team decided to write a new job description for me and to dictate through my patient how it is I should be practicing. And after they implied that I was not the best therapist for her, they hijacked her and sent her to someone who may well have much less experience than I do.”

In the clinical care of any patient, communication between the inpatient team and the outpatient physician is essential, and all too often, this doesn’t happen.
 

Dr. Miller is coauthor of “Committed: The Battle Over Involuntary Psychiatric Care” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018). She has a private practice and is assistant professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore.

As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”

So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.

Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene; we can characterize “meme” with the word “gene” insofar as both self-replicate and are translated from person to person.

I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.

Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”

Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).

The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.

In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).

Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.

Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.

Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.

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

As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”

So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.

Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene; we can characterize “meme” with the word “gene” insofar as both self-replicate and are translated from person to person.

I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.

Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”

Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).

The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.

In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).

Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.

Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.

Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.

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

As the famous saying goes, “laughter is the best medicine.”

So it’s no surprise that humor is a great way to connect with different people and across various groups.

Memes are usually conveyed as images and texts that communicate ideas or thoughts. A meme, or “imitated thing” (translation from the Greek mimeme), was reappropriated from Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene; we can characterize “meme” with the word “gene” insofar as both self-replicate and are translated from person to person.

I am a big fan of memes. In fact, I can confidently say that one-third of my camera roll is dedicated to saved memes from Facebook, Instagram, and friends. Shameless to say, I’m also part of a few online groups dedicated to memes. They are relatable, as well as quick and fun ways to make light of an otherwise dull or upsetting situation.

Memes are contagious. From the moment they are created, they can be shared from one person to another, be edited or changed to adapt to the current situation, and become viral. They can be used to augment a conversation or replace the need for text communication entirely – in a sense, they are an entire language in and of themselves. They are constantly undergoing selection, repacking, and filtration. As a result, the most popular, successful, and, usually, relatable meme comes out on top, whereas the others fall behind and become “extinct.”

Memes generally adopt a form of word- or image-play that resonates well with people. The type of content varies from general lighthearted harmless animal humor to wry political and/or social commentary. They can be nearly universal or target specific groups (for example, students).

The popularity of memes depends on two factors: likability and “viralability.” Likability refers to how stimulating or engaging the content is, whereas “viralability” refers to the ability of the content to create a similar effect of user engagement across multiple people. Both factors are dynamic and can be quantified on the basis of the number of likes, shares, and/or comments.

In a content analysis of 1,000 memes on Facebook, researchers found that affiliative and aggressive humor styles were the most prevalent. Affiliative humor refers to a style of banter or joke that portrays others in a positive light, whereas aggressive humor achieves the opposite (that is, portrays others in a negative light). Interestingly, the type of humor that achieved the average most likes and shares was self-defeating humor (that is, disparaging one’s own situation in a negative perspective).

Self-defeating memes are suggested to have higher meme fitness. Meme fitness refers to the replicability of a meme. In this context, self-defeating memes have a unique ability to resonate with peoples’ thoughts and feelings in a sarcastic way and create laughter in contexts of general hardships (for example, failed relationships, academic hardships, or general life weaknesses). In a way, I’ve found that self-defeating memes offer a branch of support; to know that I am not going through certain problems alone, and that others can understand these difficulties, is comforting.

Memes can target emotional pain, neutralize the threat, and turn discomfort into a discourse of playfulness and warmth. Especially during times of great uncertainty, a bit of banter and wry humor may be just what we need to make light of difficult situations.

Leanna M.W. Lui, HBSc, completed an HBSc global health specialist degree at the University of Toronto, where she is now an MSc student.

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